How many christian denominations worldwide?

Church

This blog post at a glance …..

It is a sad fact that many people seem to read this post and quote it, while actually ignoring the data it is based on.

Many people quote the statistic that there are more than 30,000 christian denominations. It turns out this is mistaken. There are about 40,000 christian church organisations, three quarters of them independent churches, not denominations, in Africa. The number of denominations is way less, and the number of differences in belief less still.

Please read on to see how I worked all this out.

I was asked recently how many christian denominations there are worldwide. It’s hardly an important question, but some critics of christianity use the number of 30,000 to 40,000 to argue that a true God couldn’t be behind christianity because god would communicate better.

So I thought I’d check it out.

The estimates

Most references I could find end up quoting the same couple of sources:

  • World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982) apparently estimated almost 21,000 denominations, and the updated World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, Johnson; Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001) estimated at least 33,000. “Denomination” is defined as “an organised christian group within a country”.
  • The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimated 34,000 denominations in 2000, rising to an estimated 43,000 in 2012. These numbers have exploded from 1,600 in the year 1900.

These figures are fairly consistent where they can be compared.

What do these estimates mean?

  • These “denominations” are defined in terms of being separate organisations, not necessarily separate beliefs. This is a critical difference, not commonly noted by critics.
  • The largest component (something like two thirds to three quarters) of these totals are “independent” churches, mostly in Africa. These are not necessarily different in doctrine, but are simply independent organisations.
  • These estimates include national branches of the same denomination (e.g. the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Lutheran Church of Australia) as separate organisations in the count.
  • There are many churches among the independent churches which would have effectively the same teachings, just different locations, different leaders, etc.

It is thus incorrect to say that these figures indicate more than 40,000 different beliefs. It is impossible to tell how many differences in belief there would be, and probably impossible even to define. But it would certainly be far less than the 43,000 figure.

Differences in belief

  • The sources suggest christian denominations can be divided into “6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs”: Independents, Protestants, “Marginals”, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
  • Wikipedia lists about 40 major divisions, each of whom might have some variation in belief.
  • The degree of difference in belief is hard to describe. For example, most of these denominations would have similar beliefs about major christian doctrines such as God, creation, Jesus, salvation, Holy Spirit, forgiveness, etc, and the differences would mostly be on less essential matters. How much these differences matter is subjective.

Conclusions

The denominations measured in these two reports are not indicators of separate belief, and quoting them as such is a mis-statement of the data. Due to the large number of independent churches, it is impossible to know how much christian belief varies beyond that defined by the 40 or so groups listed in Wikipedia.

My personal view is that christians divide and give themselves denominational-type names too easily. Jesus said his followers should be “one”, and many of these separate organisations are the result of serious divisions. It would be better if we emphasised what we have in common more, and worried less about these divisions.

Nevertheless, critics of christianity have work to do before they can realistically define the degree of division.

Photo: MorgueFile

Advertisements

488 thoughts on “How many christian denominations worldwide?

  1. arkenaten says:

    Again, a wonderfully misleading refutation.The last sentence says more about the way you present the case rather than the facts of the case.
    Its what you do so well.
    I for one never ever used the term ‘different belief” which is blatently false in any case. If you all believe in Jesus then you are all primarily Christian.Most of the differences are minor, unless one considers Catholicism for example.
    and most of the differences are based on interpretation and or ceremony.
    The point is, there is no over riding consensus – oh my goodness, doesn’t THIS sound familiar – which is what I have stressed all along. Very much as it was during the first few centuries with early believers splintering into different sects – The Ebionites, Arians, the followers of Marcion, etc.

    Interesting that while you readily quote Wiki et al, when you wish to site consensus, you are quick to cast aspersions when it doesn’t suit your ideas.

    So when it comes to the tough issus its always, Refer to the experts”, but something like this…your attitude appears to be, weeerlll, take it or leave it really,

    It is what it is. Like it or lump it. And what it means is there’s no consensus.

    Someone ought to ask your god to sort it out and make his Word plain and simple once and for all You know, so we avoid Waco incidents or just in case some folk who also worship god hijack a plane and fly it into a building or something, which would be a tragedy.
    Oh..wait a moment….

    Liked by 1 person

  2. HeIsSailing says:

    UnkleE, fascinating article. I appreciate your perspective on it. I hear all to often critics who use the 30,000 – 40,000 denominations as an argument against Christianity. I often hear the claim “there are 30,000 Christian denominations, and they are all arguing against each other!” or even “each denomination thinks every other denomination is going to Hell”. There are wackos in every group, but by and large this is bogus sloganeering.

    You make an important distinction in that many of these ‘denominations’ are actually differences in organization rather than differences in belief. I am also interested to know about these ‘mega-blocs ‘, particularly the undefined categories of Marginal and Independent – I have to wonder if decidedly unorthodox groups like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are being placed into those categories.

    Like

  3. unkleE says:

    G’day HiS, thanks. I’m glad you found it interesting, for I found it interesting to research.

    Yes, the researchers are not interested in theological orthodoxy or unorthodoxy – that would require them to make questionable judgments – so anyone who calls themselves “christian” could be included. So Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Theosophists, Christadelphians, etc are definitely included.

    Independent is the largest and fastest growing group, and reflects (I think) the fact that in some places people are disenchanted with the established churches and want something new, and entrepreneurs are very active. Many of the independent churches are in Africa.

    Like

  4. Tim says:

    Fascinating, unkleE, as always. One thing that people who play up the divisions miss is that many who are placed under the Christian label don’t belong there (e.g., Christian Science). They think that Christian is a category that anyone can adopt at will; we know that Christ is a Savior who came to save the world (John 3:17). There’s a difference of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. arkenaten says:

    @ Tim
    “….many who are placed under the Christian label don’t belong there (e.g., Christian Science).”

    According to whom, Tim? or according to which doctrine?
    You conveniently forget that before the Nicene Creed was drawn up and later written into law there were many beliefs held by follows of Jesus who most definitely considered themselves Christian. Marcion is a perfect example, and Eusebius had Arian symathies and although the ‘go to guy’ when it suits, the church eventually excommunicated him as unstable.
    Your ‘version’ came about after the Church set about butchering every dissenting opinion.

    As far as the Arians go YOU don’t belong ‘there’ and all things considered the Arian perspective was more rational than the supernatural nonsense that eventually evolved.

    Like

  6. Tim says:

    Well Arkenaten, let’s say someone claims there is no God yet also wants to label themselves Christian, I’d say it’s false labeling. If you want to say it’s not, go ahead.

    Like

  7. arkenaten says:

    Arians, for example, did not claim there was no god.” Neither did the Albigeneses – but this did not stop the Church declaring them heretical and in the latter’s case, attempt to liquidate them altogether.
    Go do a little research and actually find out how many christian sects were declared heretical.
    One of the problems with evangelical (reborns?) like yourself is when it comes to “Who-is- the-best-Christian” competitions, you don’t know enough about your own faith to pass judgment. Maybe if you go and bone up a bit on the history of christianity it might give you a greater understanding of how vile the church that instigated the creed you follow really is. Then perhaps you might think differently, hmmm?

    Like

  8. Tim says:

    You said no one can say someone else is not a Christian. I pointed out that categorization does have its place. As for what type of Christian I am, you have no idea.

    Like

  9. arkenaten says:

    You are correct, I took a leap of faith and suggesed reborn evangelical.
    If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

    You said no one can say someone else is not a Christian.”

    I said this? Really? Please indicate where.

    Categorization? Based on what, Tim?
    What credo are you referring to? Whiich definition do you believe a true Christian should adhere to?

    Like

  10. unklee says:

    Interesting discussion guys. Can we perhaps agree that it is clear that some people are christians, some are not, and for some it depends on definitions?

    For example, Akenaten, are you a christian? If you are not (as I assume), what definition are you using to make that declaration? Likewise Tim, are you a christian? If you are (as I presume), what definition are you using?

    I suggest both definitions would have a fair bit in common, showing that we have a fair idea what a christian is, but we will disagree on some of the criteria.

    If all that is the case, we can make statements about who is and is not a christian, but we will sometimes be wrong, and in many cases it may be wiser to avoid making a judgment.

    So I agree with your original point Tim that there will be many included in the list who will not fit in the most common definitions of “christian”, but since the stats are trying to be objective and impersonal, it would be pointless trying to separate them out.

    Best wishes to both of you.

    Like

  11. arkenaten says:

    Well, the current definition is generally determined by the Nicene Creed, as I already stated. This was promulgated to ensure a formulaic doctrine of the nature of Christ and to ensure the new religion was monotheisitic.
    Endorsed by Constantine and later made law byTheodosius. The rest, as they say is history.
    So anyone who abides by this creed would/should generally be acknowleged as being Christian.
    Of course, over the centuries there were still plenty of details that needed hammering out – virgin births, etc, and plenty of heretics that required ‘saving’ or burning or exterminating..
    There is the delicious irony that many Protestant denominations do not regard Catholics ( “Rosary Rattlers” as I heard them called ) as Christians and some even consider the Pope to be the anti-christ, All that mark of the beast crud.
    So therefore, of all those ‘christans’ amongst all those denominations the only ones that probably wouldn’t be considered Christian are those that do not believe in the Trinity (another church construct, btw)
    But hold on? Where does that leave those, that by the above reckoning, are outside the faith?
    Interesting conundrum, as there are still a few sects that do not believe Jesus
    to be god. (A belief which stems, in part, from the fact that the ressurection does not feature in the earliest copies of Mark – the verses that were in all probability tacked on at a later date by a Christian copiest.) Even Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, no matter how one tries to interpret the gospels to fit the doctrine. Son of God, yes.But then, there were many who wore this label.

    Like

  12. ignorantianescia says:

    “A belief which stems, in part, from the fact that the ressurection does not feature in the earliest copies of Mark – the verses that were in all probability tacked on at a later date by a Christian copiest.”

    This is incorrect. The appearance stories in Mark 16 are a later addition, but verses 1 to 8 are considered genuine to the original. It ends with the women being told Jesus was resurrected and then running away.

    Like

  13. arkenaten says:

    Being TOLD of the resurrection is somewhat different than witnessing” a risen Jesus.’ But yes, you are correct on this point of detail.
    If you really want to nit pick then be my guest.
    But surely you are intelligent enough to know what I was referring to, yes?
    If not, I thank you for pointing out my érror’. I often forget who I am dealing with when discussing religion and the bible. I will try to remember who I am addressing in future.

    All that aside, it still doesnt change the historical evidence: namely there is as much greater likliehood (probably more so) that the resurrection was a Christian fiction,

    Like

  14. Larry says:

    With all due respect to virtually all the “apologists”,…. Jesus warned in no uncertain tones of an inevitable apostasy in the parable of the wheat & weeds. Paul over and over warned of it & John 2:17 chronicled it as virtually a done deal by the year 98. All the so called Church Fathers did over the ensuing 200 plus years is progressively make it TOTALLY confused with their fusing Biblical Christianity…ARGUABLY the only true Christianity….with Pagan rites such as Christmas and Easter and the religious teachings borrowed from Greece and Rome…who had borrowed it from it’s source…Babylon. Hence their pattern of very unChristian teachings and conduct over the centuries fits precisely the religious pattern identified in Revelation 17 & 18 of the great harlot named Babylon the Great. Verse 4 of chapter 18 tells all such ones what they need to do …..”Get out of her ….MY PEOPLE.”

    Like

  15. KL Angora says:

    There are only three kind of Christians. 1 Fully Biblical. 2 Biblical at will. 3 un Biblical. Name of the denomination is just like name of the School. But question papers and Answer sheet is same every where and we all will face the Result day when His majesty appears in the clouds. Denomination is not a matter at all the matter is we must follow the Word of God from the bottom of our heart. In India few Catholic Bishops have been trying to divide Christianity on caste base as it is in Hinduism. That will be dangerous for Christianity there. They have been fighting for reservation in government job. The thing they don,t know is that government jobs are already shrunk. In private and outsourcing jobs, no ST,SC,OBC quota is given.

    Like

  16. David says:

    Wait arent all these denominations different but the only common factor is Jesus is god? From what I remember each denominations take ont he bible is different and in this case would go against gods teaching. The Bible is straight forward on whats required and what you can do witht he bible yet so many denominations were created and on creation contradicting each other. At the end of the day c no one is wrong and you will go to heaven as long as you have a spiritual relationship with the real god, and that god is manifested through spiritual connection not a denominations rituals.

    Like

  17. Abubakar says:

    If u claimed the differences in Organization of most of the denominations rather than differences in belief, then what brings about the differences in Organization hence they are all striving to achieve a single goal?
    If u think it is impossible to have over 43,000 denominations with different beliefs, what makes u think that it is possible to have 43,000 denominations with similar beliefs and different organizations?

    Like

  18. unkleE says:

    Hi Abubakar, thanks for visiting my blog.

    I think we can illustrate this by considering football clubs. There must be many thousands of football clubs around the world, but they all play by the same rules. They are the same in “belief”, but different organisationally – mainly due to location.

    It is much the same with churches. There are many churches, especially in Africa, with very similar beliefs, but different locations, different pastors, etc. Does that clarify your question?

    Like

  19. Anonymous says:

    The impetus behind different denominations lies in the perception that the other group is/are not “true” Christians when a disagreement occurs.

    Like

  20. unkleE says:

    I’m not sure if that is always the impetus, but I certainly agree it is a problem. I think having separate organisations or communities of believers is no problem, in fact it’s necessary, but the problems arise when each group starts to look down on the others, as you say. Thanks for your comment.

    Like

  21. Yahyew says:

    The ego and righteousness of Christian voices will, sadly, not end for a long time. And in that righteousness is the very dismissal of the foundation of the core belief. “I know more than you,” “You know less than me,” “My way is the right way,” “You don’t know what kind of Christian I am,” and so on. People, listen to yourselves! If this was any other forum, not associated with faith and beliefs, most of the responses would be deemed to be from people who have utterly lost their sanity. Christianity is not a power trip. Or is it? sit in quiet meditation and prayer, and think about the damage you’re doing to others by expressing egocentric opinions that are based on nothing of substance.

    Like

  22. hank_says says:

    There probably is a meaningful distinction to be made between 40,000 different Christian organisations as opposed to 40,000 different sets of beliefs, especially when criticising Christianity or the communication skills of its deity. When a religion – or any idea, philosophy, artistic style or cultural practice – spreads across nations and continents, you will always see subtle differences emerge; the differences become less subtle the further from the point of origin you go.

    However, my contention has always been it isn’t necessary to point out the vast numbers of Christianity’s sects if you’re using schisms as a point against its veracity; the mere fact that there are just two opposing sects is a good enough starting point. The fact that the main sects of Catholicism and Protestantism have been at odds – and, not just historically but within living memory, often at literal, bloody, bitter war – with each other, is more than enough to make an argument against the communication skills of, if not God himself then at the very least the early church fathers. When the argument is over the ultimate question of who gets to Heaven and how, even a subtle difference can lead to violent disagreement. The fact that schisms have occurred more than once in the history of Christianity also calls into question the nature of the doctrine itself – if kings or theologians or scholars can simply declare certain dogmas no longer applicable, whence the infallibility of scripture? Why should any part of it be compelling at all if any other part of it can be declared arbitrarily invalid?

    It isn’t just Christianity that has this problem, either. Sectarian strife within Judaism isn’t well-publicised, but it happens and has historically led to demonstrable harm and the Sunni-Shia split in Islam has seen, most recently in post-invasion Iraq, decades of sectarian tensions suddenly explode into bloodlust and revenge. When a non-religious person looks upon the gleeful destruction of what should be someone’s brother in the faith, it’s little wonder when they raise an eyebrow and wonder how either side can possibly justify their claim to the actual truth.

    Sectarianism and schisms aren’t just an unfortunate fact of religious history, they’re a serious point against the veracity of the faith itself. It might seem trite or flippant to criticise a God’s communication skills, but it would make sense that something so important as how to attain post-mortem paradise (and, perhaps more importantly to some, avoid the endless torture promised by Jesus in his Testament) should be unequivocal, unambiguous and not so open to interpretation that people will willingly go to war or dispossess, torture and destroy others over differing conclusions drawn from the same source.

    Like

  23. unkleE says:

    Hi Hank, thanks for your comments. I like your blog (that theme is one I have considered changing to just for variety), I note you’re from SA (I’m from Sydney) and I agree with many of your comments on Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

    I think the divisions in christianity are to all christians’ shame, but I think you overstate the case a little.

    1. It isn’t just religious people who are divisive. Our politics are built on division, football fans (especially in UK) violently disagree, religion is a major cause in only about 10% of wars, and atheistic communism was both violent and divisive. The truth seems to be that people find it easy to disagree, separate, fight, etc. If you expect religious people to do better, I would agree, but it cannot be said that religion is the prime or only reason why people disagree.

    2. To criticise “God’s communication skills” requires some sort of assessment of what you think God is on about, with some demonstration that communication is his main aim and his poor communication is at fault. I don’t think those statements can be shown to be true.

    It seems the problem within christianity isn’t so much anyone being in doubt about what God wants (it’s quite clear in John 17) but people being people (see #1) and God giving us freedom to be people. Apparently God would prefer people who have the freedom to disagree (but he hopes we won’t so much) to robots who can’t disagree. As a person, I’m glad of that.

    But, to return to my first point, I still think the divisions in christianity is a scandal, and so is the poor way we deal with this. Thanks for your comment.

    PS if you check around this blog, you’ll find I don’t believe in the infallibility of scripture – and I don’t think the scriptures do either.

    Like

  24. Anonymous says:

    Arkenaten said “If you all believe in Jesus then you are all primarily Christian.”
    James 2:19 says that the demons also believe in Jesus and christians aren’t demons and demons aren’t christian.

    Arkenaten said, “Most of the differences are minor,” comparing who to whom?

    Arkenaten also said, “Being TOLD of the resurrection is somewhat different than witnessing” a risen Jesus,” and is accusing all christians of believing in a lie. That is a huge statment to make, accusing one third of the worlds population of lying.

    Like

  25. Michael says:

    repenting of ones sins turning to God and having faith in the Lord Jesus ,that’s what makes you a Christian… ..

    Like

  26. mike says:

    The fact is that in our day God is finished with the churches satin has been placed there as a angel of light. They all teach a do it yourself gospel. The fact is that none of you can see this in Gods word the bible is because your spiritual eyes and ears have not been opened. What you must understand is that the it is a spiritual book and you cannot see the kingdom of heaven in it if your not one of the elect. There are about 2 billion people who think they are saved yet the bible teaches that only a remnant will be saved. In Isaiah it says Though the children of Israel be numbered as the sand of the sea yet only a remnant shall be saved. May God have mercy on me a sinner.

    Like

  27. mike says:

    What Michael said is a perfect example of a do it your self gospel. Salvation is Gods business We have nothing to do with it

    Like

  28. Anonymous says:

    Might I ask: why is it important to use the man made term ‘Christian”?
    Jesus did not use it, in fact Jesus referred to all people on earth as either Jew or Gentile.
    So what gives any human the right to make up a name and conclude that by that name alone, only those followers will be saved?
    Sounds like christianity is trying to trump Jesus?
    And in terms of our savior: Why did God tell the prophet Hosea ‘I am the one, I am the only one, I am the only Savior.’ If what christians teach is Jesus is our savior.
    No where in any accurate scripture does God or Jesus say that they are one in the same. In fact Jesus must be beholding to his father, God, and respect all that God says and does.
    It appears christianity has taken some literary freedoms again?
    And a Virgin birth? No such term is in the scriptures. The word christians claim means virgin is actually transated verbatim into ” young girl ‘ , not virgin.
    And so may people use an adjective to speak about Jesus. They call him ‘christ’. Christ is an adjective meaning ‘annointed one’ or something similar to it. To use this adjective correctly one must add in ‘the’ . Such as
    Jesus the Christ, or The Christ. But to use christ alone is totally incorrect.
    Jesus’ real name is “Jesus of Nazareth from the House of David”.
    To be from the house of David Jesus must have had a father, blood line back to David. If he is of virgin birth, he had no father which tells you that he did not come about by virgin birth.
    So what gives?

    Like

  29. unkleE says:

    Hi Anonymous, thanks for visiting. There’s a lot of questions there but I’ll try to answer them all.

    “Might I ask: why is it important to use the man made term ‘Christian”?”
    I don’t think it is important. I prefer to use other terms but I don’t care what term is used. But we have to communicate, so it is best to speak the language that one’s hearers use. Jesus didn’t use the internet, but here we are using it. And I don’t know any christian who thinks we have to use that word to be saved.

    “Why did God tell the prophet Hosea ‘I am the one, I am the only one, I am the only Savior.’ If what christians teach is Jesus is our savior.”
    Jesus said (John 10:30 and 17:11 – do you regard them as accurate scriptures?) he and the Father were one. I don’t think that means one person, but united.

    “And a Virgin birth? No such term is in the scriptures.”
    It is (I’m told) true that the Old Testament passage is best translated “young girl”, but the New testament uses the Greek parthenos which definitely means “virgin”.

    “To use this adjective correctly one must add in ‘the’ . Such as Jesus the Christ, or The Christ. But to use christ alone is totally incorrect.”
    Yes, you are right. But I don’t think it really matters. We give new names and nicknames all the time.

    “To be from the house of David Jesus must have had a father, blood line back to David. If he is of virgin birth, he had no father which tells you that he did not come about by virgin birth.”
    He did have a father, Joseph, he just wasn’t his biological father.

    Thanks again for your questions. I hope those answers explain what I think.

    Like

  30. Anonymous says:

    And thank you for yours.
    To have a virgin birth will not allow you lineage to the House of David. This remains a fact.
    Joseph per the christian view was his step father. In my opinion he was either the biological father or someone else had to be to give him lineage to the house of David. This remains a fact as well.

    It really does matter when christians use Christ incorrectly. It is an indication that they were taught incorrectly, as many christian doctrine do indeed show. I don’t call Jesus by a nickname, nor God.

    With your response to Hosea, you use extrapolation which is a crutch the christian system has used for centuries. I have to say, when God speaks he trumps everything/everybody. He, God, said that He, God, is the only Savior. All people can read this and it takes not extrapolation to understand it. God said He is the only Savior. And all scripture is not equally accurate. The first council of Nicaea proved that. Why don’t we get to have the Gospel of Mary or Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament? Because they were afraid of it’s message.

    Why is Matthews accounting of the day of the resurrection so different than Mark Luke and Johns?

    I’m not criticizing the faith I was brought up in, though I do not follow it due to its many many flaws and ‘lies’ that were told me, not to mention the coke head pope it had, the many child molesters it covered up, and so on. That system cannot be one God is going to judge kindly. But that’s my opinion.

    Well thanks again. It seems after 20 years of asking the same things over and over again I’m just destined to never get a factual based answer from anyone, just opinions. Your reference to the greek documents. Remember the original Hebrew Word was ‘translated’ into Greek by the scribes. It was common for these translators to put down what was necessary to create a group of scriptures that did not offend rulers and the like. These scribes were nothing by translators and every translator unless he was Jewish and or schooled in the many many Hebrew terms could not translate the documents correctly. Your note regarding the ‘Virgin Birth’ is exactly what I’m talking about. The original documents do not say virgin birth, but those that were created by the scribes do. Just manipulation again.

    Cya
    Stephen

    Like

  31. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, that was a quick response! I will also respond quickly, but after this I will be travelling and probably won’t be able to reply for more than a day.

    “I’m just destined to never get a factual based answer from anyone, just opinions.”
    Well that is true if you reject factual answers! 🙂

    “To have a virgin birth will not allow you lineage to the House of David. “
    As far as I can tell, that is factually true. But many things in the NT are non-literal interpretations of the OT, a practice that was common in first century (and earlier) Judaism, so I don’t think this need be a major issue. Jesus would have been known as a descendent of David if Joseph was of that tribe. The important thing for christians is that Jesus was “David’s Lord”.

    “God said He is the only Savior. And all scripture is not equally accurate.”
    Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that first century Judaism often interpreted the OT in non-literal ways. See this and this for more on this.

    But you are right, I believe, that all scripture is not equal. The New fulfils and supersedes the Old in many ways. Christians believe Jesus is the full and final revelation of God, and things that were ascribed to “God” in the OT may be ascribed to God the father, God the Son or God the Spirit in the NT.

    Your use of the word “crutch” is a misunderstanding I believe. I’m not trying to change the meaning of Hosea, only saying the the fuller revelation in the NT goes beyond Hosea.

    “Why don’t we get to have the Gospel of Mary or Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament? Because they were afraid of it’s message.”
    I don’t think this is at all a factual statement, but an opinion based on very little. As far as I can tell, the factual statement is that the four gospels we have are theonly ones that have a clear first century composition. (The only possible exception is Thomas, which may have a first century beginning, but the form we have now is definitely later. Very few scholars accept Thomas as early, and I doubt any would accept Mary.) So the objective reason for preserving the 4 canonical gospels is that they were the earliest, which modern scholarship has confirmed. It may be that the other gospels were rejected for other reasons as well, but we know little about their motives.

    “Why is Matthews accounting of the day of the resurrection so different than Mark Luke and Johns?”
    Who knows? Some say that, rightly understood, there is no discrepancy. Others say different Jewish groups counted the Passover differently. Most say someone (John, not Matthew) simply made a mistake or changed the day for theological reasons.

    “I’m not criticizing the faith I was brought up in, though I do not follow it due to its many many flaws and ‘lies’ that were told me, not to mention the coke head pope it had, the many child molesters it covered up, and so on. That system cannot be one God is going to judge kindly.”
    I can understand that and generally agree with you.

    “Remember the original Hebrew Word was ‘translated’ into Greek by the scribes. It was common for these translators to put down what was necessary to create a group of scriptures that did not offend rulers and the like. These scribes were nothing by translators and every translator unless he was Jewish and or schooled in the many many Hebrew terms could not translate the documents correctly. Your note regarding the ‘Virgin Birth’ is exactly what I’m talking about. The original documents do not say virgin birth, but those that were created by the scribes do. Just manipulation again.”
    Again, I think this is factually incorrect. I think you have mixed up NT and OT. I have already agreed that the Isaiah passage quoted uses a word best translated as “young woman”. But the NT uses the Greek parthenos, and this is not a matter of mistranslation. The NT documents are quite clear and we have enough copies of the originals to trace if any changes have been made and I’m not aware of this being one of them. The NT writers re-interpreted the OT documents, as I outlined above.

    So it seems to me that some of what you say is true, some of it is based on a literal approach to the OT which the NT writers didn’t always adopt, and some of it is quite incorrect. And hopefully they are factual answers! 🙂

    Like

  32. Anonymous says:

    I appreciate your response but again it proves on it’s own what I have come to understand is actually 100% correct.

    God does not speak in trickery. God does not deceive us to gain anything. God is the utmost, honest, caring, sharing, giving, loving and in every way possible ‘correct’ entity there is/was/will be. (if what I have read from any and all man made religions is true. my reference back to all of us humans being either Jews or Gentiles (Jesus’ words) supports my understanding that having a man made religion here on earth serves no purpose that God or Jesus ever stated. We did it to serve our own needs).

    With God being so honest up front with us I have to put your own words to task. And can easily prove my point that manipulation is the corner stone of all man made religions.
    You stated:
    “It was common for these translators to put down what was necessary to create a group of scriptures that did not offend rulers and the like. These scribes were nothing but translators and every translator unless he was Jewish and or schooled in the many many Hebrew terms could not translate the documents correctly”.

    So without any disrespect, what I have said repeatedly remains the truth.
    Man has written non-truths and labeled them Gods word or the Words of the Christ, where in fact they are simply man’s words created by manipulation during translation.

    This is why when I read a verbatim translation of any of the oldest scriptures I almost go into shock. All the christian teaching and lecturing and fire and brimstone teaching is actually not only false, it’s it actually against Gods words, which is a sin God spoke about.

    I have read and read about the term Yahweh. There is no such word in Hebrew. The Hebrew writings had no capital letters, no spaces between words, no punctuation and no vowels. Another misinterpretation by man to create a name that does not exist in the original texts. No man, or woman, has the right to change text to ‘fit’ into a certain religious belief system. Yet Christians and Islam and all the others do just that. They interpret to accommodate their needs.

    I despise any killing under the name of God. But people forget the Crusades. People killed because they would not convert to Christianity. Same thing the radical and equally wrong Muslims are doing today. Christianity did it first.

    I’ll say this in closing just as food for thought.

    Just imagine that what I am questioning is actually correct, just imagine, you don’t have to believe me, just imagine it to be true.
    When you and the others that have believed and preached these ideas meet God, what will you be able to say in your defense?
    There is nothing you can say.

    It does not take being a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu or whatever we may label a man made religion to be saved by God and enjoy life everlasting within his holy realm. We need to only do what he, God, told the prophet Amos.

    (I’ll have to paraphrase but the core of the statement remains the same)

    God said to the prophet Amos: ” I will turn my back on your hymns, your prayers, your celebrations, and your sacrifices. All I want is a flow of Justice and Righteousness in my world.

    God sums it all up for me. Man made religion, gathering under a banner with a man made name, is of no interest to God, our creator. He only wants us to be good people, to live good lives, to treat others with respect, to honor his name, and to have a flow of justice and righteousness throughout his world. You don’t have to be a christian to be saved because, God said, He was the only Savior.

    Wishing everyone a very safe holiday season and that God looks down on me with a smile on his face and an understanding that I am only trying to learn, to understand, to be as he would want me to be. I’m not throwing anything in the face of any religion. I am not smart enough to judge anyone else. I’m just not enamored by man made religions and prefer to stick with my God.

    Like

  33. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen

    I think there is a bit too much there to comment on (except to say that in one place you say that I stated something, apparently unaware that it was you who had said that earlier and i was quoting it to comment on it). Thanks for your interest in my blog.

    Eric

    Like

  34. pulseteresa says:

    Unklee – I don’t find your argument convincing. While you are correct that it’s not possible to quantify every belief, your decision to err on the side of “there are fewer than 43,000 different beliefs” ignores the fact that many individual Christians have beliefs that differ from their own denomination. The following is an example. It’s ridiculous, but it’s an example nonetheless. 26% of Americans believe that God will decide the winner of the Super Bowl. This is obviously not Biblical. I seriously doubt it’s the belief of any denomination. And yet a significant number of Christians believe this. (Since most Americans are Christians, it’s a safe bet most of that 26% are Christians). Another point you do not address is those Christians who do not attend church and declare no denomination. Being a Christian does not require church attendance. Who knows how much their beliefs may diverge from those of any denomination.

    Ultimately, there is no way to determine how many different Christian beliefs are out there, but given the stats we do have and the couple of points I just made, it’s a safe bet that there are tens of thousands of different Christian beliefs out there even if it’s not as much as 43,000.

    Like

  35. unkleE says:

    Hi, thanks for reading, thinking and commenting. Obviously you are right, that everyone has different beliefs about something or other. But the question I was answering related to denominations, which is a different thing. People who belong to the same political party will have different beliefs about many matters, but they are still members of the same party. So I think it is the same with denominations. Thanks.

    Like

  36. Denny says:

    I found your blog looking for an answer to the number of denominations. I was preparing a bible study on 1 Cor. 10-13 and the Greek for “division” in verse 10 is “schismata”. So I looked up schism and denominationalism and found it meant to separate into sects. Sects are united by doctrine according to dictionary.com

    I have quoted the 30K+ number of denominations myself but not as a criticism but as a lament. I always took it to mean differences in doctrine also since each denomination that I have visited always had their own statement of belief that you needed to agree to before joining.

    For each independent church they sometimes referred to a common set of beliefs like the Baptist Faith and Message and other times created their own, usually including a doctrine to affirm a belief which caused a split from the previously united communion.

    All the comments were interesting especially since I used to live in Melbourne for my job and I haven’t heard an Aussie since I returned to the states. I am starting seminary in March so I hope to meet a community like you have created with your blog. Good on you mate.

    Like

  37. Stephen says:

    The 40,000 or so different denominations of christian churches is comprised by the listings of known, not imagined, christian churches world wide. It’s an easy thing to research if you have access to different nations records or those of different denominations claiming to have found or seen or met with christian groups worldwide in their effort to spread christianity.
    Even the Church of the Tiger in Africa counts as a denomination with only one church/building/etc. This is a made up church name, just an example. But I do know of the Cowboy Church and the Christian Church in the Meadow, the Church of the Rock. All three are individual churches with only one facility.

    Like

  38. unkleE says:

    Hi Denny, thank for your comment and your good wishes. Melbourne is a good city. Sydney and Melbourne are supposed to be rivals, but we love Melbourne and visit regularly. I hope seminary goes well.

    Hi Stephen, Church of the Tiger, Cowboy Church and Church of the Meadow all sound interesting. I even once heard of the Church of John Coltrane!

    Like

  39. thomas452 says:

    The hebrew word (transliterated) ‘alma’ or ‘almah’ meaning young woman or young maiden used in Isaiah 7:14 is first used in the plural in Judges 21:12 which includes an editorial addition that these ‘almot’ (plural) have not had sexual intercourse with a man. Therefore they were virgins and the translators of the LXX (Greek) Hebrew Scriptures c.285 B.C. would have been right in translating Isaiah 7:14 as ‘virgin’

    Like

  40. unkleE says:

    Hi Thomas, Thanks for your comment. I don’t think most scholars agree with that assessment, but I wouldn’t want to argue about it. But I’m wondering why you felt that comment was related to this discussion?

    Like

  41. Dan D says:

    You argue that since the frequency of doctrinal disagreement/conflict between sects of Christianity cannot be measured, then it can’t be used to criticize the religion. This is a fallacy known as Loki’s wager. The point is, conflict and splintering DOES exist, often with violent extremity as we can gather from country-shattering conflicts in past centuries. It doesn’t matter if there are 2000 or 50,000 unique sects of Christianity, the criticism “a perfect deity could have communicated better” still stands.

    Like

  42. unkleE says:

    Hi Dan,

    “it can’t be used to criticize the religion”

    I didn’t quite argue that. After all, I criticised christianity myself for being too divisive. I think the churches should be criticised for not being more united. But I think equating different organisations with being divisive isn’t factual.

    “the criticism “a perfect deity could have communicated better” still stands”

    I wonder how you would run that argument? What if there were just 2 different sets of beliefs? Would that point to God being there, or is even 2 too many? How do you decide how many different sets of beliefs God should “allow”?

    And how do you draw the conclusion that the differences in belief are God’s fault? Take the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not in the Bible, it’s something God apparently left unstated. Is it his fault if theologians decide on a doctrine and the argue over it?

    Are you actually suggesting that God should force all christians to think alike?

    I think it is easy to say what God “should” have done, but a bit harder once you try to flesh out the argument. I’d be interested to hear what you think

    Like

  43. Tex says:

    Well, I do not believe God has to do anything. Why people say things like this is beyond me. He does what he wants to do. He is God or as he explained to Adam, his name is Hashem (spelling). Only we humans call him God. He referred to himself by his name or as an Elohim. We simply like to label things/people.
    I do not believe Hashem is behind any man made religion. I believe he is rooting for good people to be even better and to share with him in the ‘after life’ his love and happiness. I do not believe he even cares about a man made religion, they are insignificant. He implies this to the prophet Amos.
    God tells the prophet Hosea that other that himself, there is no savior. So, I’m believing Hashem and taking him on as my savior. Remember I sad our God, Hashem said he was our savior and that no other is. So christian beliefs have a way to go to square what God said vs what they teach.

    Like

  44. Tex says:

    By the way, Loki’s Wager has nothing to do with statements made nor the reasoning behind those statements. Had you been ‘current’ on the differences between the tens of thousands of christian sprouting’s of beliefs, you would know there are many that have in the past and currently do now and without any reason to assume they will not continue to point fingers at each others religion and claim they will all go to hell because they are not of ‘one specific’ cult or thread of christianity.
    So Loki’s kinda not in the equation.
    This is a discussion for most of us. You have labeled it an argument.

    Like

  45. Tex says:

    Unklee,
    why when people state a belief do you seem to regularly go into a ‘what if this or what if that’ or set up equations that don’t exist or have no bearing on a statement.
    why not just address the statement(s) and leave it at that?

    Like

  46. Tex says:

    Thomas,
    you are using what all christians use to support the ‘virgin mary’ myth.
    Rationalization.
    It’s not good enough that thousands of years ago the term meant young girl for you.
    You have to wade around in the more current texts and statements by ‘christian’ theologians to find a statement that applies to your needs.
    The term meant and still means in it’s earliest usage ‘young girl’.
    Why can’t christians leave it at that?
    Why can’t christians accept Gods statement that other than him there is no savior?
    God called himself ‘the savior’ Jesus never did use those words.
    Why is it so difficult for christians to just go along with God?

    Like

  47. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex, thanks for your comments.

    “He is God or as he explained to Adam, his name is Hashem (spelling). Only we humans call him God. He referred to himself by his name or as an Elohim”

    There are many names of God in the Bible – see for example this list in Wikipedia. Do you think some are more important than others?

    “God tells the prophet Hosea that other that himself, there is no savior. So, I’m believing Hashem and taking him on as my savior.”

    Does that mean you don’t think Jesus is the son of God and our saviour, and the king prophesied in Isaiah 9:6-7?

    Like

  48. Tex says:

    I believe Gods words. He is the only savior. There is no savior other than Him.
    Jesus is a child of God, he is male, he is a son of God.
    I’m a child of God, I am a male, I am a son of God.
    I’m not ‘The Son of God’ but am a ‘Son of God’.
    Jesus never actually said he was God nor that he was the savior unless one uses extrapolation. This is how Christians get there and we don’t know the validity of the documents anyway. We can’t even find who actually wrote the gospels and they don’t even agree with each other. So how much is real and how much is made up in the NT?
    At least the OT is from Gods words and he actually said it. I can’t be in trouble believing in God’s words.
    Besides who ya gonna believe? The creator when he says he is the savior or not?

    Like

  49. Tex says:

    Besides, instead of living on quotes from the bible as my only staff of support, I really believe Gods words over all else. He is the one, the big kahuna, he is the only one that counts because he created me and I owe him everything for giving me this chance to live and be a good person and earn my passage into his kingdom. He said he is the only savior, so I’m not going against Gods word. I’m going to believe him. Even Jesus as great a son of God as he was, will still take a knee for God, God is everything to everyone. My opinion. Nothing is greater and to believe in God I feel I am in good hands.

    Like

  50. Tex says:

    Now don’t take anything I have said as some sort of attack on other beliefs, it’s not. I just like asking the hard questions and hoping a discussion can begin and I can learn from it. I just never get anything in terms of ‘specific’ answers from christians regarding the things I believe (like God’s words saying he is the only savior) and that the term used for virgin was actually young girl.
    I like to see people try to figure these things out but I never get specific words that state anything to the point like what I have quoted God saying about him being the only savior.
    Love the discussion, hate the arguments, live to learn.
    When I meet my maker he’ll tell me it all.

    Like

  51. ignorantianescia says:

    Only we humans call him God. He referred to himself by his name or as an Elohim.

    And “Elohim” is the Hebrew word for “God” or sometimes for “gods”. So what’s the point here?

    Like

  52. Tex says:

    Well:
    Based on historical facts:
    Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown.
    The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.
    We are so arrogant that we have taken the word YHWH, we capitalized it and added vowels which did not even exist in the ancient texts.
    There were no capital letters, no vowels, no spaces between words and no punctuation. Yet christians know it all.

    That is what this was about.

    Like

  53. ignorantianescia says:

    All right, you’re obviously not comfortable with vocalising hashSHem/the Tetragrammaton, so I’ll see I’ll work around that.

    We are so arrogant that we have taken the word YHWH, we capitalized it and added vowels which did not even exist in the ancient texts.
    There were no capital letters, no vowels, no spaces between words and no punctuation. Yet christians know it all.

    If you mean the word appropriated by the unitarian Christian sect that is famous for its door-to-door evangelising, that’s fair and more power to you. Those vowels are not at all historical. They derive from the vowels of “Adonai” being added to hashSHem in the medieval Masoretic manuscripts.

    But the more academic reconstruction is based on better evidence than that and is not exclusively held to be true by Christians.

    As for the word “God”, it is not a new invention, it is simply the counterpart in some Germanic languages to “Deus”, “Elohim”, “Theos” or “Allah”. It derives from Proto-Germanic *guda which may have been a loanword.

    Like

  54. Tex says:

    Hashem is a great term and not many christians know of it. In my opinion that is exactly ‘God’s’ name. Use it around christians and you’ll get eyebrow raises and people walk away. He introduced himself to Adam with that name, so why are we not using it to refer to him these days instead of God?

    I just call him Dad (I am a child of his) and Jesus I call big brother (he is a child of God as well and came before me and is a male).
    I feel in the family with them, close to them in spirit.

    My whole wonderment is the ignorance of what is fact. People call Jesus, Christ. Can’t use an adjective as a name. His name I believe is Jesus of Nazareth from the House of David, yet you’ll hear it all day long from christian ministers.
    Christ means something like ‘anointed one’. In church we used to speak latin and would say Jesus de Christi (Jesus the christ).

    Just funny how all man made religions use so many (and these are only a spec of dust sample) wrong headed statements and each still declares to be the one and only way to God/Hashem

    Like

  55. ignorantianescia says:

    Hello Tex,

    It is probably a good idea for me to narrow down my intentions. I don’t mind that you have a preference for one divine name or another. That is entirely up to you. But I would question whether the names that others use are worth ‘correcting’ and I do not think your arguments are persuasive. They often depend on the etymology of a word, but etymology does not decide how a word ‘should’ be used in this day and age.

    I mean, Christos indeed used to be an adjective, but adjectives can become nouns and names. Messiah used to be a Hebrew adjective, but it too became de facto a name. It is just unusual to use adjective substantively in English, but English is a little peculiar in this way.

    Like

  56. Tex says:

    I completely understand and yes this may be a borderline criticism, however, if an entity such as the christian assemblies (the 40,000 some odd number of ‘christian’ churches) can’t get the little things correct, then I really have a great deal of suspicion with the bigger questions. This goes for ‘ALL MAN MADE RELIGIONS”.

    Like, virgin vs young girl. It’s not even a question if actual literal text, the oldest texts that have been used by all man made religions to base their ‘bible’ off of, is used. She was a young girl. A virgin? Maybe, maybe not. Divine birth, nope, Jesus was conceived as we all were with donations form male and female beings. Could what we hear called ‘God’ have provided the male side? Sure. He can do anything,
    But I do not see any real proof other than a man made religion’s writings that say so.

    Even the gospels are not actually guaranteed to be written by the persons claimed to be the authors. One of them, Matthew? or Mark? wasn’t even an apostle. His was written a hundred years after Jesus birth, so how accurate are these ‘man made documents’?

    How can coke heads, child molesters, those that had relations with women in their parish, etc, etc and worst of all a hierarchy that helped hide it for centuries. I can’t trust such an entity, ever, and I don’t believe Hashem does either. He’s most likely ashamed of them doing some of these things in his name.

    I like Hashem. We will get along well in the ‘after life’, I just know it.
    I’m too simple of a person. Not difficult to understand, I don’t talk in riddles, and if I don’t like something, I just say so. I’m a sinner no doubt, but a simple sinner.

    Cya
    Tex

    Like

  57. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex, like IN, I don’t really care about which name you use for God, but I feel the strength of your conviction about some of this may lead you to miss some other important matters.

    1. Most scholars that I have read agree with you that the original word in Isaiah was “young girl”. Of course such a young girl was almost certainly a virgin, but that wasn’t the word’s meaning. And I think it is true that many christians are ignorant of this. But there are other things you seem to ignore. Isaiah 9 says: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, … And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” No mention of a virgin, but certainly mention of the child having some amazing ascriptions for a Jew. And two different traditions (Matthew & Luke) both say Jesus was born when Mary was a virgin. You may not understand that the New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, often take an Old Testament passage and give it new meaning, not because they were dishonest, but because that was accepted practice in first century Judaism, and they would say the Holy Spirit showed them new meanings – for more on this see Interpreting the Old Testament. So christians have good reason to think of Jesus as more than a “brother” and to believe Mary was a virgin when he was conceived.

    2. This raises a question in my mind. Do you think the Old Testament is more important than the new, equally important, or is the NT more important than the OT?

    3. Your understanding of the writing of the gospels is very different to the historians. None of the 4 gospels was written as late as a hundred years after Jesus, and all agree that many of the stories and doctrinal statements which form the basis of the NT go back to the same decade as Jesus died. Some believe one or more of the Synoptic gospels were written very early while others don’t.

    4. You make much of “man-made religions”, but don’t seem to realise that the same accusations could be made about what you believe or what I believe. If someone doesn’t believe the Bible reveals truth, then that will be their conclusion. But since I believe the NT reveals truth about Jesus, then following Jesus isn’t a man-made religion for me. I’d be interested to know how you decide what is man-made and what isn’t.

    5. All of this would be academic except that it may affect what we think God requires of us. Jesus taught that we would be judged by our response to God and to him and our response to other people. Either he was telling the truth or he was mistaken. I fear that your emphasis on things that are not so important may lead you to miss the thing that is most important, and I wouldn’t want to see that because you seem like a pretty genuine person. What do you think about that?

    Like

  58. Tex says:

    Your first paragraph.
    I understand. Yet literary freedoms get abused, just in these cases. If one has to learn to ‘interpret’ the OT then the have not read a true verbatim translation. It’s a bit odd to read, kinda like the way the mexican language is when compared to english, but it works. You just read it. It tells you everything that is important. Open your mind and your heart will follow.

    Your second paragraph.
    Yes the old testament is more important to me because it was written so many thousands of years before the NT was established. I believe in the NT times, mankind had much more reason to twist, lie, alter scriptures to control people through fear of the church. They do that even today in 2015. Not many people will recognize and admit that the christian church did exactly what the psycho muslims are doing today, convert or be killed. Both are wrong but no one ever talks about the chrisitans slaughtering . And I was raised a catholic. The crusades were the early ISIS.

    Your third paragraph.
    I have to disagree, and if you re-read my statement I hope I said 100 years after Jesus’ birth, not after his death, a 33 year difference. This looks like another ‘slip’ of the christian pen to change what was actually said. And I can guarantee you that there is no source that can say exactly how old the gospels are except that they are claimed to be by persons x,y and z with no signing of the documents. These were written as far as theologians can tell after being passed down from person to person. These were not written in the actual time of the happenings as the OT was. Luke didn’t even know Jesus. Marks accounting of the resurrection does not even talk about a resurrection as the other 3 do. Way too much discrepancy for such an important christian belief to be solid. Dating these documents is based on scripts used, not carbon dating as on rocks. It’s subjective.

    Your fourth paragraph.
    Doesn’t even make sense. My personal beliefs are my personal beliefs. I’m not trying to convert and create a ‘religion’. I believe in God as my savior because he specifically said so. I have no problem with following Jesus but you don’t belong to the “Following Jesus Church” or at least in reality I do not believe you do. You are no doubt a member of some ‘man made’ religion which is what I have a problem with others telling me what is right, what is wrong, and if I do not believe what they preach I go to hell in a hand basket? You are in that group to an extent based solely on your statements. I think God is much more powerful and more intelligent than to have created such a illogical belief system as christianity. This is man made. The NT did not even exist until @ 320 AD. And the number of documents that ‘men’ decided did not work well with the current ruling order of the church were thrown out, burned, or set aside. A man made the decision what all others to follow would read/learn/be taught from within the christian man made religion. A man!? Really? A man? Makes no sense. Why not the gospel of Mary? Why not the gospel of Thomas. Why? Because they threatened the status quo.

    Your fifth paragraph.
    I believe if I do what God asked. Follow the 10 commandments and let a flow of justice, righteousness and honesty throughout my life, I’m in like flint. This is really all that is required unless there is something I have not yet read in the OT.
    The prophet Amos was told by Hashem that he would turn his back on all the psalms, prayers, singing, celebrations, sacrifices, etc, etc. Because all he wanted was a flow of justice and righteousness throughout his world. That’s what I’m trying to do. To me, this means that organized religions are of no value to Hashem since all he wants is justice and righteousness in this world he created. To me, living, dying and enjoying everlasting life comes down to these simple tasks.

    For me, Hashem (I call him Dad) and Jesus (I call him big brother) are family members of mine. I am of their family because I am a child of Hashem. We all are. I don’t pray to him, I talk to him and hope he hears my conversations and helps me out from time to time. And, he really has. It’s amazing what he’ll do for a good reason. He may not give you billions of dollars, but he’ll give you strength and understanding so that you can cope with those things that happen in life that cause us stress, concern, frustration.

    He is a good God, Hashem. I like him. I’m glad I am in his family and loved.

    Tex

    Like

  59. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex, thanks for responding. I don’t wish to argue about most of it, I will just pick up on one point.

    “These were written as far as theologians can tell after being passed down from person to person. These were not written in the actual time of the happenings as the OT was.”

    I wonder where you get this information from. The scholars tell us that much of the Old Testament is written much longer after the event than is the case with the New Testament. For the OT, the gap could be as much as a millennium, for the NT it’s between 20 and 50 years.

    For that reason, I trust the NT more. It seems to me that you are basing your suggestions in these comments on completely wrong information. Like I said, I don’t wish to argue about it, but it makes much of what you have said impossible for me to accept.

    Like

  60. Tex says:

    Well we do disagree and in both of our statements there are only our opinions or opinions of other ‘men’. So we have no actual day/date stamp.
    I follow the OT because it is much closer to Hashem and his interaction with humans on earth. If ‘God’ said it, I’m going with it.
    It may be a weakness I have for my creator, but nonetheless, I’m following Hashem the one that allowed me to be here in the first place. I can’t go wrong if I follow my creator.
    None of the Gospels were written in 50 AD. Script analysis shows 80 AD as the earliest possible and many reference 140 AD.
    Besides these documents, which all are wonderful to read and enjoy were not even matted into anything christian until @ 320 AD so the christian ‘church’ is a relative newbie compared to Hashem’s chosen people, which I have stated earlier I was raised a catholic.
    Be good, be safe, live life.

    Like

  61. unkleE says:

    Well Tex, it seems you hold your beliefs even though they are contrary to what the scholars say (e.g. the consensus of scholars is that the whole NT was written before the end of the first century, and the NT was compiled much closer to the events than the OT was). I’m not sure there is much more to say. Thanks for commenting.

    Like

  62. ignorantianescia says:

    Hello Tex,

    I’m not going to criticise your reasons for preferring your beliefs. And if anything, HaShem is indeed an apt name.

    But I’d like to give you some more information regarding this:

    None of the Gospels were written in 50 AD. Script analysis shows 80 AD as the earliest possible and many reference 140 AD.

    Most scholars would agree with your first sentence, but disagree with your second one. It has been suggested that gMark was written in 40 and gMatthew from 55 to 70. These rather early views are not widely held by scholars, but they are defensible and secular views. The latest date for a gospel that I have seen in recent years would be dating gJohn to 125, but that is a rather late date. A typical date is a range of 85-105 for gJohn (the latest gospel) and 65-70/70-75 for gMark (the earliest). Other NT texts may have an earlier date than most gospels (Pauline epistles) or a much later date (some apocryphal works).

    Script analysis is a paleographical tool and would tell from what time margin a manuscript dates. But dating a manuscript is not the same as dating a text. For instance the earliest OT manuscripts are the Qumran texts, but the earliest OT texts date from far, far earlier.

    Like

  63. Tex says:

    Then you do not recognize the first council of Nicaea?
    This is what established the Christian Bible as we know it today.
    Prior to this there were many different texts teaching many different christian beliefs. Most if not all were in conflict and even today the 40000 christian man made religions remain in conflict regarding much of the teachings.
    The christian church was fed up with so many different belief systems and wanted to unify the many different churches into one. This is why the first council was held.
    Happened in @ 320 around AD.

    One christian belief system in particular believed statues like those of Jesus/Mary/Hashem/etc are sinful and pagan like. They believe that only 2 dimensional likenesses can be had. Is this teaching in the christian bible? I’ve never seen it.

    Here is a good read: http://www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm
    It explains how what we worship, a man made religion, is in it’s core carrying an evil history, just like us sinners.

    We all have our beliefs. I am strong with mine and my connection with Hashem, he is the one true ‘God’ as we call him. As I have said in the past, I believe Jesus to be his son but a true human being, created just like you and I, and I believe when we meet him we will be surprised at how human he was.
    My best to you all, it’s invigorating to have these volleys.

    Like

  64. unkleE says:

    Tex, I find it difficult to understand how you come to the conclusions you do, I’m sorry.

    “Then you do not recognize the first council of Nicaea?
    This is what established the Christian Bible as we know it today.”

    So if you think it takes a church council to establish the text of scripture, what council established the text of the OT?

    “Prior to this there were many different texts teaching many different christian beliefs. Most if not all were in conflict and even today the 40000 christian man made religions remain in conflict regarding much of the teachings.”
    Can you justify any of this? (1) Can you please list some of the early christian documents that were mostly in conflict? (2) This post establishes that there are NOT “40000 christian man made religions remain in conflict regarding much of the teachings.” Can you therefore show where I was wrong in this post?

    “We all have our beliefs. I am strong with mine and my connection with Hashem, he is the one true ‘God’ as we call him. “
    If you worship God/Ha-shem as in the Old Testament, do you sacrifice bulls and goats? Do you follow all the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? What priest do you go to? What temple/tabernacle?

    Like

  65. Tex says:

    That’s perfectly fine, it’s always been hard for christians to shoot down my beliefs or ever support theirs with scripture. I still remain connected to Hashem, he is my savior, he said so. Simple as that. No one, not even Jesus would speak against Hashem or his words.

    Like

  66. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex, I have no wish to “shoot down” your beliefs. But if you write a comment expressing and supporting those beliefs, I will likely want to question the basis of them. I have done that, and I feel some of your statements are illogical or factually wrong. That doesn’t seem to worry you, so I shouldn’t let it worry me either, I suppose.

    But I feel a little concerned that if some of your beliefs about God have little factual basis, you may be depending on a false idea of God for your peace and security. If I could help you find a more secure and factual basis for belief, I would like to do so, and I have tried to offer that. But as I have said all along, I am not interested in argument, just in helping.

    So if I could help you clarify facts, I would be pleased to do so. If not, then go in peace! Thanks.

    Like

  67. Nic VE says:

    Many Christians believe that the Bible is fully inspired by God and the council of Nicaea was God working through man to write/assemble scripture. Certainly God did not need any help (he could have dropped it from heaven or any number of ways). I’m not claiming right/wrong or trying to get into all the details, but if this belief is truth then none of the translation discrepancies before that time really matter as the council at Nicaea “sealed the deal” so to speak. Without that council, the scripture (OT and/or NT) could be innumerable manuscripts translated any number of ways and truth would be hard to find – without the council it could even be argued that most of the real scripture is long lost and we just have remnants of it.

    The Crusades was a matter of Christians “at war” to defend their religion. They were being overrun and forced out of their lands for decades, and wanted/needed it back. Most importantly, there was no “killing in the name of God” or “convert or be killed”. This is a common misnomer as the facts of the Crusades is confused with other events. Quite the opposite, other religions were welcomed to coexist with the Christians in their land before the crusades (which resulted in being overrun) and after. This is a stark contrast from ISIS and others whose scriptures state under no uncertain terms that killing infidels can earn them high marks, and is encouraged over and over through time. Not to claim Christianity has always been 100% peaceful (it hasn’t) but the truth about the Crusades and what’s behind it seems to be often missed.

    Like

  68. Tex says:

    NC VE

    You reply like most christians do, with, ‘it is believed’ , ‘sealed the deal’, etc.
    These are simply rationalizations by ‘humans’ mostly ‘men’. No facts.
    It shows a weakness in the belief system if the simple faith in Hashem/God is not enough to survive on.

    Who says that the OT and NT have to be connected by decisions ‘men’ made at the first council of Nicaea anyway? Did God tell us this was needed for us to follow 10 simple rules/laws/commandments? Really? God asked us to do this?????

    God’s own words, the words of Hashem, my creator, my father in heaver, are good enough for me. I don’t really need a ‘man’ or woman’ to tell me what God says.

    The crusades were exactly as I have stated they were. They were a ‘convert or die’ crusade. It is written down in every know historical document. Sure the catholic church was being warred against, so were every other man made religion on earth.
    Humans have been warring over religion for several thousands of years.
    Many of them were warred against by the catholic church, it was called the crusades. Convert or die. You are using rationalization again, it shows a weakness.

    I only use facts. Terms and information that is found in historical documents that existed long before our current day western civilization began twisting and turning things around and upside down to control people. All you have to do is believe in your creator, from your heart, and he will save you a place in what we call heaven.

    I would be ashamed to be related to any person, family or belief system that ever used ‘convert or die’ as a banner. Don’t you think God/Hashem is going to be very hard on those people? He said to never change his words or speak for him, but to preach his words. These people took Gods name and used it as a battering ram against anyone that did not believe like they did. Same thing with the witch hunts! Those people are going to be judged very harshly by God for burning at the stake innocent people. I’d hate to be one of them.

    But nonetheless, please don’t continue using commonalities that christians have used for centuries trying to prop up a losing battle. You just have to be a good person, believe in God from your heart, and do as much good as you can while here on this earth for such a brief time. That’s all God ever asked.

    Tex

    Like

  69. Nic VE says:

    TEX,
    I truly respect your viewpoints and do not mean to criticize, but I am curious what leads you to believe that the ten commandments are actually written by God and not contrived of Moses just to get his people in line? Why are certain manuscripts “truth” for you and others not, what sets them apart other than being dated earlier, as all manuscripts were penned (or verbally passed down) by men?

    Like

  70. Tex says:

    Excellent question, excellent. The same can be said for the NT. In fact since at the time the later scripts were written, man made religions had already entered into the early period where religion wanted to control mankind. It still does to this date. It even wants to control governments and countries. Something God never asked or desired, unless you can point to a quote, which I’d read willingly and with an open mind. It needs to be a quote, not another inference, please.

    So what we have is what I believe is the real problem with man made religion. It’s man made, it’s interpretations, it’s extrapolations, it’s inferences, it’s poor or controlled translations, it’s he said she said. It can be said about God’s chosen people the Hebrews, and about all man made religions, bar none.

    Now with the OT, if the 10 commandments were not given to Moses, that Moses just came up with them, then it would just support my beliefs that man made religions are not condoned by God. For me, it’s a win win either way.

    I agree anything is possible and is why I can easily and comfortably question things that are man made as being man serving, not God serving. These commandments seem to serve Gods statements to the prophet Amos about turning his back on (man made religions) all the sacrifices, prayers, hymns, celebrations, etc, etc. All God wanted, as God said, was a flow of Justice and Righteousness throughout his world. We do not need nor were we commanded to create some 40,000 different christian religious groups (plus no telling how many other man made religions there are world wide).

    The ten commandments if they were written by Moses are the simplest most complete set of rules any person could ever imagine to live their life by. However I have to say that Moses could not have been Moses if he were to lie to the entirety of God’s chosen people. It is indeed my feeling that these were given to Moses by God, but I was not there and cannot say that I know it with certainty, or that I saw and or heard it happen. I do not profess any knowledge about the actual and specific happenings of the past. Yet christians do. They believe that if they, christians, believe it or say it, that it is written in stone and is Gods words. They do this without any proof, just their word, ‘trust me’ they tell you.

    Christians forget that very few christians ever spoke with God one on one as did the many many Hebrews in the OT. The NT is based around the christian belief that Jesus is their leader, not God. What Jesus says goes and if you don’t believe it then you will not make it to heaven. I was raised a catholic and this was indeed taught. In my opinion, and as God said in his own words to the prophet Hosea, There is no savior other than God. This pretty much puts a red flag up when christians claim that Jesus is the only savior. Who is right? God or Jesus? God came first, God is the father of Jesus just as he is the father of us all. We are all beholding to Gods words including Jesus. Who ya gonna choose?

    I believe that there is a greater entity than myself or any other human past/present/future. I believe he is just, honest, loving, caring and forgiving. Like the best of the best of the best of grand fathers. He loves all his children and we are all children of God, including Jesus. Jesus refers to God as his father, I call God/Hashem ‘dad’ with great respect and I call Jesus ‘big brother’ with great respect. Hashem is Jesus’ father according to Jesus himself. I have no problem with this at all. But christians do. They cannot accept that their religion and the players in it may be no different than Islam and Mohammed or Buddhists and Buda. There is no way to know either way. No one can say. We were not there. Many popes were pedophiles, had women, used murder and bribery, were the worst of people in their times, yet they cannot make a mistake? I think not and I think Hashem will judge them harsher than many other that are judged. God warns about changing his words or his teachings. We are to spread his word but never are we to speak ‘for’ God.

    I can takes God’s spoken words from a book called the ‘Word’ (written and assembled by the Hebrews and Jews and recognized world wide by all man made religions and what the christians coined the OT) and live by Gods words, wishes, commands (as well as a sinner can) and be able to know that God/Hashem will save my soul at the time of my death and I will have life everlasting if I am a good person based on Gods rules/regs. I do not need any man made organized religion, especially one that does not put and keep Hashem as the most revered spiritual entity and creator of all we know now and forever. He, Hashem, is the one and only true God, period.

    sorry to be so long winded.
    i appreciate your questions/posts/beliefs and respect them without exception.

    Tex

    Like

  71. Nic VE says:

    But sir, we have lived in a fallen world ever since Adam and Eve sinned. My understanding of your belief is that the Hebrews and Jews were “less fallen” since there was no reason for them to write the manuscripts incorrectly; while after Jesus time people had incentive (political, money, power, whatever) to skew the truth for their own good. As I said I can respect your viewpoints, I just don’t fully understand how it’s logical that many centuries of a fallen world can be considered “truth” in the history books (the OT manuscripts, if you will) and then after Jesus’ time it is not wholly true. (Not that it needs to be logical, faith being as it is, but I digress…)

    I do agree 100% with your statement “It even wants to control governments and countries. Something God never asked or desired…” and this was a defining reason for the Reformation and eventual colonization of America and behind the founding principles of the U.S. (Not that they were the only ones “right” at that time, that’s just behind it, and of course America would have been colonized regardless). I can understand then how your being formerly Catholic would have taken you to the place you are in your beliefs (as perhaps you could say that Christianity was “too far gone” for the Reformation to rescue it) and that is OK.

    I also stand with you to not condemn other religions in this world, while I will stand firm on my Reformed beliefs I will not judge others (even far from Christianity) to claim they are “wrong” and will fall on judgement day. Right or wrong, God will judge them according to His perfect will.

    Like

  72. Tex says:

    No this is again another christian misstatement that comes from trying to ‘work’ things out to fit the christian belief system.

    Up until A&E ate of the forbidden fruit, they did not have any reason to be ‘sneaky’ with their beliefs. However it is shown that quickly after their expulsion from the GofE humans began their evolution into more and more deceit.

    Example number one would be cain and able. Cain kills his bro because he is jealous and wants what Able has. It continues on and grows exponentially as humans learn how to manipulate others and how riches and power can rule over those weaker so to speak. Physical force is finally brought into the picture with things such as the Crusades. Convert or DIE!

    It has nothing to do with hebrews, jews or christians; it just the way humans are or have become; jealous, greedy, power hungry and so on. It exists to some level in every person, even I. There are lots of things I’d like to have but am able to squash the desire most of the time and just do with what is best for me at my ripe old age. Hashem helps me a lot with this. Yet I am human and sometimes fail.

    Everything I have said is based on human kind and it’s known growth from innocent cave dwellers and or hunters and gatherers to what we have become today. In every instance of every government back as far as one can research, corruption has existed and has grown. This is not a statement of my personal belief only, it is a historical fact. With time, every group, government, religion becomes more and more controlling. In the latest example I gave the churches of the world the man made churches/religions want to control the world, the people and the governments. They spend billions in America trying to get conservative religious ideas passed.

    “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is Gods ring a bell?”

    You have little real understanding of the reasons that people migrated to America and created a new world. It was not just religious persecution it was the same reasons as America has experienced even today (again in an increasing manner) the total control of a society by a few.

    Back in England if you wanted to open a bread shop you had to ask the local royal family. If they had a family member or friend that wanted to do this you were told no and were imprisoned if you went against the royal family’s wishes. Illegal non representative taxation was another primary reason.

    Religious freedoms were not the primary reason, although christianity will tell you that it was. Simply look into the historical records of Europe. Protestants became what they were because they were in “protest” to the catholic form of religion. Both are/were christian groups though. A man made religion.

    Catholicism and Protestants are simply a split of the christian belief system. It seems like even they could not agree on a religious base? You should know this.

    You continually confuse my statements. I do not condemn any religion. I merely point out that they are all ‘man made’ and not condoned or wanted nor desired by God/Hashem. They are man made entities. God needs nothing to be God, he is God. We need to follow his word (the OT) and live good loving caring giving forgiving lives and we’ll enjoy life everlasting which only God/Hashem can provide, none other can save us or give us life everlasting, only God, he said so.

    If you do not believe what I’m saying then just think about this. What is going to happen to all the good people that have lived, are living or will live on this planet that never hear of anything regarding religions, God or Jesus or Mohamed or Buddha? Do you believe God will send them to hell in a hand basket because they were not members of this or that man made religion? No he is not! He will judge each person on their own actions and their intent within their heart and nothing else.

    And, just because a person is a member of this or that man made religion does not give them the right to sin simply because they are a member of religion x or y or z. God will judge them harshly and will, I believe, judge even worse those leaders of man made religions that use Gods name to lie, trick, control, and personally benefit from using religion as a whip.

    I respect your opinions and hope mine do not injure you or anyone else in any way. I have a firm opinion about my God/Hashem and I love him greatly, yet I am a sinner and can only hope to do better each day. I really do try to do just that.

    Tex

    Liked by 1 person

  73. splashx40 says:

    Firstly there are thousands “denominations” of Christianity which in my own opinion is pathetically pointless. Secondly some of you go on about Adam & Eve like you all knew them personally… Bit of info for ya… Adam had a wife before Eve, her name was Lillith. Apparently she was banished because she wouldn’t conform to “God” or Adam, which is where Eve comes in & if I remember rightly she never really conformed to them either as she ate the Apple. Hhmmm. And Thirdly all the religious books throughout history like the bible etc… We’re ALL written by MAN. Religion is man-made & yet none of you seem to listen to that fact or even research any of it for yourself. The bible & all the others are the exact same, read them all & you shall see. Man made religion to divide the people of this planet, to start wars etc… So they can depopulate us. Wake up & look around, also I advise you to take a good hard look at your governments wherever you live in the world. They are the puppets for the elite, they want a “One World Order” Wake Up & take a stand. Don’t be prisoners in your own bodies. No need for fighting, what we need in this world is Happiness, Love, Compassion, Good Vibrations. Not war, death & destruction!

    Thank You for taking the time to read my comment 🙂
    Love & Light To You All ❤

    🌍United As One 👤
    🌎Divided By None👥

    Like

  74. splashx40 says:

    Also… Did Jesus exist? Yea I believe so. Did he die on that cross for “our” sins & then come back to life 3 days later? No! That is impossible & deep down you all probably realise that. So unless he was NEVER put up on the cross to bleed out it didn’t happen. It really is fascinating to me, you are all being controlled by these religions that bow down to an entity that is apparently this great whatever you want to call it, who’s meant to be full of love & compassion yet it’s ok to kill if the “time” calls for it. Wake up people, religion is around to brainwash the masses so we conform to the elites! You are slaves, robots. Not thinking for yourselves. Shouldn’t need a “God” to tell you you should show love & commission, to send out good vibrations to the universe.

    Love And Light ❤

    🌍United As One👤
    🌍Divided By None!👥

    Like

  75. Tex says:

    Splash, take a pill. I agree much of all man made religions is bunk. Lillith did not get banished, if she existed. She would not be second to Adam, she and God as we call him had no problems between the two of them. Go find something that says different, some ‘real script’. She was a wild fire, wanted to be on top, didn’t want to be number 2 to adam and he then complained as the myth goes. So God made him Eve and allowed Lillith to remain in the GofE because she did not eat of the fruit of the forbidden trees (yes there were 2 trees. One of knowledge and wisdom and one of eternal life. read the bible)

    Like

  76. splashx40 says:

    UNKLEE~You’re very welcome mate 😊
    TEX~ Please don’t tell me to take a chill pill! I wasn’t irate in my comments nor did it seem like I was stressing at all. I find all my information out by researching everything & then to be very thorough I research my research. Now why earth would I read the bible? I have no interest in what is written in either one or any other religious texts. I only mentioned what I know as the more I read through the comments the more bickering I saw, & what for? There are far more important things in this life than religion. We are in process of Spiritual Awakening, people are Waking Up & finally seeing what is going on. Corrupt governments, Police/military states in many countries, police brutality… Breaking free from The Elites brainwashing malarkey. Religion is a massive part of the brainwashing process. If this “God” really does exist then why is he allowing all these people all over the world to die? Why is he allowing the terror, destruction & lots of death to carry on in Gaza? Please do answer that for me! There shouldn’t be any fear, negative energies & death.

    Love & Light

    Like

  77. Tex says:

    If you are referring to my creator in ‘Why is he allowing ……’
    Please remember, He gave us free will.
    So we are doing this not him.
    The free will we have could not be free will if he stepped in every time one of we humans did stupid things.
    Free will, free will.

    Like

  78. unkleE says:

    Hi Splash, you are welcome too. But just to clarify, my welcome doesn’t mean I agree with you. You have said a lot which I don’t think can be justified and which I don’t think is true, I just chose not to argue with you. I think religion often is false and I guess sometimes does help “brainwash” people, but I don’t think God and Jesus are like that.

    And I agree with Tex (I don’t always agree with Tex, but I do here!) that free will explains a lot of the evil in the world. People have choice, which makes us a much “higher” form of life than robots, but it also means we can do a lot of harm.

    But although I believe you are mistaken, you are still welcome. And I do think love and light are very good and very important! 🙂

    Like

  79. Samuel Stromswold says:

    Even if I grant you that the differences in beliefs of christian denominations are minimal. (Even the 40 you provided seems like a fairly large number for an omnipotent god to allow.) You still haven’t said anything about other faiths. Why wouldn’t God have put Jesus in every culture in human history so that all could be saved? Surely that would be within his power, and how come there are so many religions besides Christianity that people have believed throughout all of human history. If there really were an interventionist deity surely they would have given the same revelations to all cultures on Earth if they really wanted every culture on Earth to believe them.
    Ultimately there are two main possibilities as I see it, either there is a god or pantheon of gods that want us to worship them, or religion was a trait that helped primitive humans survive and thus was selected for by natural selection. If the first case were true we would expect all cultures to worship the same god(s) and have almost identical faiths. If the other case were true we would expect to see that almost every culture in history does have some religion, but their beliefs are widely varied and change over time. I’ll leave the reader to decide which of these two models better approximates reality.

    Like

  80. unkleE says:

    Hi Samuel, thanks for reading and joining in.

    “Even if I grant you that the differences in beliefs of christian denominations are minimal. (Even the 40 you provided seems like a fairly large number for an omnipotent god to allow.) “
    I wouldn’t say they are minimal – I said they were not nearly as large as often claimed, but I said I think divisiveness is scandalous.

    “Why wouldn’t God have put Jesus in every culture in human history so that all could be saved?”
    There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps he has tried and people refused to listen. Perhaps he is happy to judge people by their response to whatever light they have been given. Perhaps he doesn’t care which religion we follow. Perhaps he is leaving that up to us. I don’t believe all those answers, but it indicates that just to assume a particular answer is a little presumptive.

    “If the first case were true we would expect all cultures to worship the same god(s) and have almost identical faiths.”
    Why? Depending on which of the above surmises is true, we could expect any different outcomes.

    I’ve never been a fan of these arguments based on what we think God should have done. They always assume God has certain objectives when he may not, and treat God like a limited human being.

    So I agree that the proliferation of religion and belief is some sort of argument, but I can’t see it is a very strong one, compared to the strength of other arguments.

    What do you think? Why do you find the argument strong?

    Like

  81. Damon says:

    Jesus Christ only established “ONE” church. The Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah Witness, Episcopalians, Methodists, or whomever or whatever denomination or religion men created to provide jobs, paychecks, or careers didn’t establish or create anything other than man-made lusts, just like the Nicene Council. It is “MEN” who established denominations, and they did so to collect money, build buildings, and pay salaries. They don’t do as the Apostles did when they established congregations (Acts 2:45 and 4:35). Why can’t people understand that God doesn’t dwell in the works of the hands that men worship (Mark 14:58, Acts 7:48, Act 17:24, Colossians 2:11, Hebrews 9:11&24, 2 Corinthians 2:11, and many others)?

    I have attended many denominations, and it is sad to say that they have only one specific tradition is common. They may “worship God” in their own established tradition, but they all ask for or collect money, and their goals are to increase in numbers, build bigger buildings, hire more preachers, and increase collections, because religion today has become big business and big money. People claim to be Christians but hate their brothers and have no interaction with other denominations or those of other beliefs, but they expect to be able to lead souls to Jesus Christ, who was God’s Perfect Example to the world, and He was hated by it. Not once is it recorded anywhere in Scripture that Jesus ever collected money. He didn’t even have a place to lay His head, but He was the greatest “minister” this world has ever known or ever will know. He didn’t even ask those whom He healed, or raised from the dead, if they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. He just asked if they believed in Him.

    If we follow the Commandments of God, we are all members of that one body that Jesus established, as Paul so stated in Romans 12:4-5 and First Corinthians 12:12&20. I simply don’t understand why people feel it is necessary to “argue” about which denomination is “Christian” and which is not or how many their are, because the divisions are many. The Church Jesus established is not a building with a name above the door. Anyone can call themselves a “Christian”, just as anyone can call themselves a “Jew”, but aren’t Jews (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9). People today have no idea how to worship God, and they follow their preachers like sheeple, because few have a sincere desire to read or study God’s Word, and there is no other way to know God. Just read First John Chapter 2, specifically 2:27. Yet, most only “worship” God, because they are seeking a reward, when their love of God should be unconditional. I will leave you will one question, “Would you still worship God if He didn’t reward you”? Now, read Matthew 7:22-23 and let the “discussion” continue.

    May God have mercy on us all.

    Like

  82. unkleE says:

    Hi Damon, I agree with you that denominations are often unnecessary and unhelpful, and some are established to make money, but I think that isn’t common in my experience. I don’t know of anyone in Australia making all that much money out of religion!

    Like

  83. Tex says:

    You do a lot of quoting but you never quote anything from who we call “God”, his name is actually Hashem and he told Adam his name when he first spoke with Adam.
    Nevertheless, why not also tell people that Hashem, told the prophet Hosea that other than he, there is no other savior?
    It’s God’s words, Hashem’s words, not some modern day man made religion that said it.
    I believe God/Hashem is my savior because he said so.
    What do you say?
    Do you believe God/Hashem or do you believe what the man made churches teach?

    Like

  84. myatheistlife says:

    The idea that the differences between Christian sects is not really a big deal is stupid. If you had to choose between (let’s say) 10000 kinds of corn flakes for breakfast… too many. Let’s say you had to choose between 40 kinds of corn flakes for breakfast every day. There’s no reason for the many kinds save for the people making them can’t agree on the recipe for the one true corn flake. Everyone has their own interpretation of the exact right way to have breakfast. It’s all interpretation of the recipe whether there are 40 or 40,000 different kinds of corn flakes, all they’ve done is prove their is no one true corn flake, and the recipe for the one true corn flake was probably made up anyway… by someone that got tired of oatmeal.

    Like

  85. unkleE says:

    Hi Snake, thanks for reading my blog, and I’m really pleased that you chose to re-blog it. Unfortunately, you have got it back to front – I said the facts show that there are NOT 43,000 denominations, but much much less. Most of those counted in the supposed 43,000 are in fact just separate organisations, which is quite a different thing. It’s a bit like saying there are 50,000 different codes of football in a country because there are 50,000 separate clubs! There are a lot of denominations, way too many in my view, and a lot of disunity in christianity, but this figure doesn’t represent that. I think you should read my article again.

    Like

  86. unkleE says:

    Hi MAL, thanks for reading my blog. I agree with you that divisions among christians is a bad thing – I said in the post: “christians divide and give themselves denominational-type names too easily”. But it is a fact that most of the supposed denominations are in fact separate organisations and not divisions over belief at all.

    Like

  87. Mikhail Kalashnikov says:

    It is of no significance that there is “much less(er)” Christian denominations. It is however, of significance that god’s “word” has been interpreted so differently amongst Christians.

    “But it is a fact that most of the supposed denominations are in fact separate organisations and not divisions over belief at all.”

    You must be severely misinformed. There is quite clear distinctions between MANY different Christian denominations. It has almost nothing to do with organizational structure. There’s been very distinct differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I could provide more examples, but I really don’t think that’s even remotely necessary.
    Biblical scripture has and will always be elastic and nebulous. Just take a look at how the WBC formed. A person could go to a Baptist and Mormon church and see the differences immediately.

    You cannot change logic as and when it fits you either.
    “Christians divide”? So it’s man’s mistake now? All these Christians claim to be divinely inspired in their beliefs. Is there nothing wrong there? Why is it human error whenever something doesn’t make sense, but glory goes to god whenever something seems to?

    I don’t even know how you derived your checkmate attitude – You completely skirted the criticism and ignored the fundamental issue of there having different interpretations of the bible. But hey, blame it on Satan. If there’s one thing that’s benefited mankind from Christianity, it’s the sheer ingenuity of coming up with innovative “answers” to the most obvious flaws in the system of belief.

    Like

  88. Jake says:

    As an avid reader of The Holy Bible, I have found that I had to unbelieve quite a few things that I have been taught by, or heard preachers say my whole life. Some things that people would call me a heretic for stating, just because they themselves have been taught or heard thier whole lives, but I’m not going to get in to all of that at this time, just my belief about denominations. Now when asked what religion I have, I simply respond that I am a Christian and will not choose any denomination. I believe than the word (denomination) might as well be replaced by the word (division). While I can’t quote book, chapter, amd verse off of the top of my head, I do know that Jesus said “let there be no divisions among you”. I am not trying to offend anyone elses beliefs, I’m just saying that division causes confusion, and confusion is a very popular tool that Satan or the Devil likes to use. I also take The Holy Bible to be very literal except for parables and etc., and just don’t understand how there can be so many different interpretations of it in existance, unless the Devil is behind it, driving confusion to ensnare us all. After all, the Devil has the opportunity to corrupt Christianity since the very day that Jesus Christ was crucified.

    Like

  89. unkleE says:

    “You must be severely misinformed. There is quite clear distinctions between MANY different Christian denominations. It has almost nothing to do with organizational structure. “

    Hi Mikhail, I didn’t make that statement without evidence. Of course there are differences between major denominations, but did you know that something like 70% of the denominations counted are independent (i.e. non-denominational) churches in Africa? So what I said is true of at least 70%.

    Hi Jake, I tend to agree with you. Christians would be better off if we had never formed denominations that divide people off from each other.

    Thanks for both your comments.

    Like

  90. Cara Elizabeth Ramsey says:

    Even just 2 different groups of believers casts aspersions on the authenticity of your faith.

    Why? Look at the religious wars throughout history. Two different versions of Christianity have resulted in many wars throughout centuries, resulting in millions dead.

    And you think your God condones this? If you God spoke more clearly, those wars would never have occurred. The fact that they occurred demonstrates that even just 2 differences of opinion serves to invalidate your belief system when those two versions come to violence over their differences.

    Like

  91. unkleE says:

    Hi Cara, thanks for sharing what you think about this. I certainly agree with you that christians fighting wars against each other, or against other people for that matter, is a terrible betrayal of the teachings of Jesus. And I certainly don’t think God condones this. I think christianity, rightly understood, is a very peaceful religion.

    But do you know that religion is a major cause in only a small percentage of wars? (See Does religion cause wars?. Of cause even a small percentage is too many, but it does help us see that it is other aspects of human nature that are the main problem.

    I’m interested in your comment about differences of opinion. Do you think that if there was a God, he would force us to think the same about everything?

    Thanks again for visiting, I hope to hear from you again. Eric

    Like

  92. Tex says:

    Well it’s always the little things that people argue about and yet never address ‘with facts, not extrapolation’ the major points of question.
    OT, Book of Hosea, God said (not Hosea, not some other man, not some religion a man created, but God said to Hosea); besides me there is no other savior.
    Now I’m certain this is going to get lots of ‘explanations’ but not one will go to the heart of the issue.
    Do we believe God or christians?
    Nowhere did/does God ever say he and Jesus are one in the same.
    With the correspondence between Raymond Brown, speaking for the Vatican with the Popes permission and agreement, this statement along with many other conflicts in the christian belief system have been acknowledge as church fodder. Things the church scripted to create a different storyline than the OT and the historical documents that were later transcribed by the Greeks. In this transcription the actual words were changed to fit what the ruling entities wanted.
    The specific one about ‘virgin’ Mary is one of many in Browns letter.
    The vatican clearly agrees this was changed by the church of england, the catholic church, and is indeed incorrect. Yet today it is still preached.
    How is that?

    And Damon, quit calling Jesus of Nazereth, Jesus Christ, please. That’s not his name. You have to say Jesus of Nazereth. Christ means ‘anointed one’ not ‘the anointed one’. Many christians are butt backwards on this issue. To claim a savior and not know his name? What?

    Like

  93. Tex says:

    What?
    Go back to history class please.
    More wars have been fought over religion on this earth than any other topic.
    Even today’s ISIS is a religious war.
    You need to go back and check with some theologians and ask them.
    WW11 was against the Jewish and Catholic faiths as well as other ‘crazy man’ ideas of taking over the world.

    Like

  94. Jake says:

    There are so many interpretations of The Bible because most people get into reading it with preconcieved ideas and or beliefs. They then ignore any passages of scripture that are contrary to them and pick and choose (sometimes even the smallest pieces of scripture) to adhere to those ideas or beliefs. They sometimes claim to be devinely inspired for personal gain. The Bible is not as elastic or nebulous as it may seem. If a person wants to know the truth about any given topic, this is how they should go about it. Find the topic in question every time that The Bible mentions anything about it from front cover to back cover, even reading a chapter or two above and or below it if need be to put it in perspective. Then think about everything that was said on that topic and one can come to a conclusion. It is true that one can pick and choose passages from The Bible and twist it together to make it say just about anything that they want it to, but if a person goes about in the way that I described, they should always come up with the unrefutable, undeniable, and absolute truth. Also yes, the Devil/Satan is a very real entity and is the author of cunfusion and conflict, even though he is unseen. He loves nothing more than getting in the way of people that are truly seeking God so it is logical to conclude that he is behind so many different ways of looking so differently at the same subject matter. May God bless everyone and help them to see the truth.

    Like

  95. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex. You express a view about religion and war with great confidence. Lots of people think the same, but sometimes the things we think we know, are actually wrong. I did as you suggested and went “back to history class”, and found something different to what you think. If you check out the link I posted (Does religion cause wars?) you may get a surprise. I hope you read it and then come back to discuss. Thanks.

    Like

  96. Cara Elizabeth Ramsey says:

    Comparing absolute number of deaths is bogus. Around the time of Christ total population was between 200 and 300 million human beings worldwide. Now it’s 7 billion plus. Of course events later in history are going to be “larger” than previous events in terms of human interaction. Apples and oranges.

    As for thinking about things? When it comes to matters of reality, yes we should all view those the same way. Our differences come from our experiences, the daily emotions we feel, etc.

    Take the hateful bigotry towards LGBT people shown by Christians. And no, don’t even give me the “love the sinner, hate the sin” BS because Christians don’t treat divorcees this way. They don’t even treat murderers, rapists, and pedophiles (Josh Duggar!) the same way they hate on LGBT people. Yet science clearly shows being LGBT is not a sin but an inborn biological trait. Further, there are clear differences of opinion about many of the verses used to hate LGBT people. For example, Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 do NOT say “a man shall not lie with a man”. They say a man (ish in ancient Aramaic) shall not lie with zakhar. Don’t know what zakhar is? I can tell you this, I know, and it’s not ish (generic man). Other verses suffer similar troubles of ambiguity or having been translated outright incorrectly, yet despite showing these linguistic facts, the church persists in unwarranted persecution of people who are as they are because of an inborn biological trait.

    That is what is wrong with religion. It’s 6000 year old superstition created by frightened goat herders cowering on the side of Mt. Ararat in terror of the “thunder god” overhead. All the rest is typical religious con man quackery. All of it. And then people have the gall to fight over this? To kill over this? As I said before quantitative arguments do not excuse religion’s hideous moral failures. How can something that claims to be the basis of morality fail so completely over and over and over again? It fails because it is false, because it is a lie, because it is propaganda used by the oldest profession of shysters in human history – religious people. Religion gives an excuse to feel superior to some other group of humans then to scapegoat them. For centuries the church preached the “curse of Ham” as applying to people of color, and thus justifying slavery and racism. Now the church tries to act like it didn’t say that for centuries. Bollocks!

    And before you try the “but atheists have no reason to be moral” argument, are you telling me that you would behave in immoral and unethical ways if it weren’t for fear of a “sky god” punishing you? Because that’s how that argument sounds. Atheists behave morally by choice, even without believing in eternal punishment and reward. If religious people are admitting the only reason they behave is because they fear punishment, they’ve just admitted they are sociopaths on top of everything else.

    Like

  97. Tex says:

    I believe the reason why I have this stated as I do, is every war that I can look up, or say 80%, the two factions that are either preparing to war or have entered into a war are of different religious beliefs ‘in general’.
    You don’t see many christian nations fighting christian nations, And so on so forth with many other religions.
    Even today’s ISIS is simply a different branch of the Islamic tree.
    Even throughout the great Persian Empire the rulers fought against many different religious groups. However the rulers of this Persian Empire were different. They allowed anyone to practice any religion they desired, just pay your taxes to the government is all they wanted.

    The Huns did the same against China and other Asian countries and it seems in what I read they for the most part believed God was on their side of the argument.

    The Crusades ‘convert or die’ is exactly what Islam does today that people are in an uproar about and I too believe that ISIS is a horrible group to do such things. But, Christianity did the very same thing.

    I’m not saying and apologize if I have indicated that only religion is the reason to fight. It is really that people use religion to support their waring in my opinion.

    I believe a country’s religion molds a government and a people and I see this today in Europe and the USA and Australia and the Middle east. Their wars are not only and specifically based on just their religion but their religion put the ideals in their heads about changing other regimes and making other countries a democracy and so on.

    Many religious supported wars are wrong, if not all of them. If there is an enemy, go kill your enemy. If its for oil, money, power, world rule then it’s wrong and we as Americans have waved the banner of christianity over many battle fields. It is even said before many battles, ‘May God protect you’. Who ever said God wanted a war anywhere?

    In the Book of Amos I read that God doesn’t care about organized religions as we suspect. He just wants us to be good, honest, just and righteous people. I like that.
    I’m giving you my understanding of the passage not quoting or speaking for God.

    Like

  98. unkleE says:

    Hi Cara, it is obvious you feel strongly about this, and I’m sorry for any unfortunate experiences that you have had with unloving christians. I have visited your website, so I understand a little of what you think and feel. But just as you ask people to accept you for who your are, I’m hoping you can accept me for who I am, which is not as you have apparently found other christians.

    So, I do not pass judgment on LGBTI people and I make few statements about the whole “issue”. That is because (1) most things I could say would aggravate somebody or other and I want to avoid that, and (2) I am not clear in my own mind what I think about the whole “issue”. So I will not say more on that now, though I plan to be writing something on it all soon, for whatever that may be worth.

    But I can say you are welcome to comment here and share your views.

    You say comparing the number of deaths is bogus because of population growth, and I agree. But the sources I quote don’t primarily compare deaths but the number of wars, and they say consistently that only about 10% of wars have religion as their primary motivation. Of course all wars are complex, and religion plays a part in many, but so do dozens of other factors.

    As for unity on the way we think, many of the divisions among churches are about matters of opinion, not “reality” or fact – usually a different emphasis – e.g. charismatic gifts or election vs freewill or form of government, or theology of the Bible, etc. It’s not that different to different political parties, different football teams, etc. I think it is a travesty that some christians argue so vehemently over such stuff, but the formation of separate denominations doesn’t seem to me to be the problem, but the argument is the problem.

    Thanks again for replying to my questions. Do you have any comment on what I’ve said?

    Like

  99. Tex says:

    And best of all;
    Judge not least ye be judged.

    I am a straight male/dad/grandfather and don’t understand the alternative lifestyle but I’m not in a position to judge anyone.
    I just want a life filled with good people/experiences and an ending that finds me in Gods good graces.

    Like

  100. unkleE says:

    Hi Tex, did you check out the reference I gave you? The conclusions there are not base don some idea I have or you have, but on quite careful research by historians. Do you accept their research?

    Like

  101. Tex says:

    I’d have to study it more. Do some research and then make a decision.
    But unless things have changed I can remember very few wars and or even conflicts that did not have religion at it’s core. May not be the only factor but it’s always there.
    As I had indicated even WW11 was race based. Kill the Jews Kill the Catholics.
    There were many other reasons. Of which, Hitler was crazy.
    But I’d have to have many resources from many different viewing sides to ever claim a single source was the answer, without exception.
    But I’ll be looking into it.
    One has to remember even race differences are based in religion, how they were raised. White america raised up under the christian banner grew up believing blacks were inferior, some still do and claim it is Gods way. This is absurd.
    Cya

    Like

  102. Peter Sweeney says:

    Dear Confused Pilgrim 21st Century … You say it doesn’t matter how many denominations there are … Sir, IF there is more than ONE … then it is not Scriptural! Respectfully submitted, a watchman of His Word.

    Like

  103. drdoolittle says:

    I find it interesting, that in Revelation it speaks of seven churches,
    (1) Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) – the church that had forsaken its first love (2:4).
    (2) Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11) – the church that would suffer persecution (2:10).
    (3) Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) – the church that needed to repent (2:16).
    (4) Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29) – the church that had a false prophetess (2:20).
    (5) Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6) – the church that had fallen asleep (3:2).
    (6) Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13) – the church that had endured patiently (3:10).
    (7) Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) – the church with the lukewarm faith (3:16).
    Your article speaks of six fractions, there must be a seventh, according to scripture.
    Or is it that all seven of these interpretations exist inside all churches?
    Meaning, people inside each church are one or more of these descriptions.
    When John wrote Revelations, he was speaking to churches actually in existence
    at that time, when we read Revelations today it’s of a spiritual nature.
    What’s your take on this?

    Like

  104. unkleE says:

    Hi DrDoolittle, thanks for visiting. My take, for what it’s worth, is that John wrote to 7 churches that had specific issues, and I don’t see any reason to suppose their are typical of ALL churches. I think often today we have very different issues. But we can still learn from those churches. I don’t feel we can expect the Bible to speak to all our issues today. We have been given the Holy Spirit and he will guide us into truth even if it is a matter not mentioned in the Bible.

    Like

  105. unkleE says:

    Hi Ben

    How did you think a Baha’i website would assist in thinking about christian denominations? Do you think people should think Baha’i is true because of all the christian denominations?

    I have met friendly Baha’is and read some of their books in the past, so I’m interested in how you see things. Thanks.

    Like

  106. Ben Ingham (fadedsails.com) says:

    I just wanted to provide another perspective that maybe, although these different denominations are many, there is a majority that is still working towards the good of the human race.

    Looking at the Baha’i concept of one ever-advancing Religion, Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim, then the Babi dispensation (1844) all were making way for eachother, and now it has come to the Baha’i Faith. Same God, different eras to which humanity needed guidance.

    By my comment I meant it might be helpful to remember the source of all these different philosophies as being all from the same God.

    That being said, I do feel as if *some* denominations have strayed far from their original faiths. Just for comparisonthe Baha’i Faith is unified with a very strong covenant paired with a world administrative body based in Haifa, Israel.

    Bahaullah, the prophet, said “regard the world as the human body.” How can we survive as a human race if all the world’s organs and tissues believe strongly that they are independent from one another? It would be very difficult to progress to a state of voluntary peace and unity in that case.

    The abolishment of clergy in the Bahai Faith, replaced instead with a democratically elected non-partisan administrative system (by secret ballot, with any kind of campaigning being forbidden) goes hand in hand with a fundamental law in the Faith which is that each person must independently investigate the truth. This is why I don’t want to provide too much of my own subjective opinions, lest they dilute the word of God. One good book on the Christian revelation and prophesies from the Baha’i Faith is called “Some Answered Questions” by Abdulbaha, the son of the prophet. I think it would be helpful to compare God’s different religions and to look at the Baha’i perspective from your own eye. As with all athoritive texts, to remain accessible, a copy is available openly in electronic format here: http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/

    Like

  107. unkleE says:

    Hi Ben, thanks for that information. As I said I am somewhat familiar with Baha’i, though it is some time since I have thought about it.

    I presume you are a Baha’i? Were you born into that faith, or did you convert? I’d be interested to hear your story.

    You say “one ever-advancing Religion, Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim, then the Babi dispensation (1844) all were making way for eachother, and now it has come to the Baha’i Faith. “ Two questions arise in my mind.

    1. How do you think Islam was an advancement on Christianity, and how do you think Baha’i is an advance on Islam?

    2. What do you think about other religions – major ones like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and Jainism, and the smaller more pagan and polytheistic religions such as Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Norse, native American, Australian aboriginal, etc? Do you think they too are all from the same God?

    I have only glanced briefly at your reference (it is quite long) but I didn’t in that brief perusal find answers to these questions. Thanks.

    Like

  108. Reverend Veritas says:

    Whether it’s 40,000 or just 40 you’d still expect that Christians, even other religions around the world in general, would be able to reach some sort of objective consensus if there was any verifiable evidence for their beliefs. We don’t see that though; all we see is further schisms and violent sectarian conflicts over who’s correctly worshiping the same God.

    Like

  109. unkleE says:

    “you’d still expect that Christians ….. would be able to reach some sort of objective consensus”

    Hi good reverend! Actually I wouldn’t expect that! People disagree about almost everything in this life. So why would you expect that?

    Like

  110. Hector says:

    If the 38,000 plus religious institutions we have on this earth were listening to the Holy Spirit, we would not be offering opinions. There is only one Church, the one that Jesus purchased with his Blood (Ephesians 1:14b); the only religious institution approved by the Father. It was not a Baptist church, a Roman Catholic Church or a Lutheran church, etc., we must all be on the same page, unwaveringly. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “But though we or an angel from heaven, preach (or teach) any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” This verse is very clear and easy to understand.

    Like

  111. Stephen says:

    Hector,
    Christians always do and can only quote from the christian NT text.
    There is no OT text supporting any church by God.
    God never condoned or approved any man made church.
    This is a just a lie. A christian lie.

    The holy spirit is also made up from the old Babylonian triune of pagan gods.
    Hesus Horus Krishna.

    Christians say Jesus is their savior where in fact, God himself says in his own words in the book of Hosea that ‘besides me there is no other savior.’
    Therefore if you believe Jesus is your savior you have turned your back on God.

    Christian doctrine was created during the first council of Nicaea under the Pagan Ruler Constantine, and is documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

    The gospels were not written by the supposed persons that have been associated with their writing but instead were written by priests hundreds of years after the Jesus lived. Matthew Mark Luke and John were simply placed on these ‘gospels’ to give them more clout. The cathoilc church notes such and is the largest christian assembly in the world. They should know if their NT is truthful or not.

    You are just the product of a false church, one that is man made, not a religion blessed or approved by God.

    In fact read the book of Amos and you’ll see where God says he will turn his back on all of the celebration, sacrifices, hymns, prayers, celebrations, etc. For he only wants a flow of justice and righteousness throughout his world.

    This simply tells us that a man made religion is not important to God and he can do with out them. He just wants us to live a good life, be good people, and enjoy life everlasting when we pass on with him where ever heaven may be.

    You sound angry about any religion other than the one you support. Much like Islam does today.

    Like

  112. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, you make some interesting statements here. I wonder can you explain them please?

    “the old Babylonian triune of pagan gods. Hesus Horus Krishna”

    Hesus was a Celtic/Gaulish god, Horus was Egyptian, Krishna Indian. How are any of them Babylonian? How are any of them connected to the Trinity?

    “The gospels were not written by the supposed persons that have been associated with their writing but instead were written by priests hundreds of years after the Jesus lived.

    How then do you explain that we have a copy of a small part of John’s gospel dating to the first part of the second century? And that almost all historians agree the gospels were written in the period 60-100 CE?

    Like

  113. ignorantianescia says:

    I second what UnkleE said. Though I initially thought that “Hesus” was a typo and the supposed connection a play on the vulgar “Jesus H. Christ”. But it seems not.

    Like

  114. Stephen says:

    They are simply Gods. All gods are generally passed down from citizenry to citizenry and each gives the God a new or different name.
    The Bab’s had a 3 face god, a triune or trinity. It is a carved into stone entity.
    This triune is believed to be the source for the christian trinity.
    This is based on the Pagan ruler Constantine’s first council of Nicaea.

    The catholic encyclopedia gives much info on this first meeting that most Christians do no know because Catholicism is different that other christian belief systems in many ways. This is one of the original wonders I had trying to figure out why so many different Christians believe so many different ways and yet each claim their way is the only way. One believes that statues are worshiping false gods and therefore there are no statues in their belief system, only 2 dimensional paintings and drawings.

    I don’t know which scholars you are citing however, if one were to speak with a historical research scholar at the cat. church one would find that they have even posted an official statement noting the gospels are not written by the supposed 4 writers of the gospels but instead were scripted by priests, with good intentions, under the order of others as late as 320 325 when the first NT was assembled and then duplicated for use by the church. There is no NT prior to this date range. They still believe the words to be Gods words (which is in my mind foolish) and they adhere to them none the less.

    The link I posted or should have has much to explain about the christian church including all of this plus the mitre hat or fish hat of Tammuz, how Krishna became Hesus and then later when the J was introduced into writing, Jesus.

    It’s a long strange trip.

    http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book3TheGreatDesception/aTOC.htm

    The above link gives a lot of info to consider.

    This all began when I read in the OT the book of Hosea, Besides me there is no other savior. Gods words. I just have to trust God to not lie to me or trick me.
    He’s my savior and my bud.

    Like

  115. Stephen says:

    Regardless as to how one spins a statement or numbers:
    There are over 40,000 different sects of christianity.
    A sect or denomination is a stand alone entity. No one, not even you can group together different belief systems and claim they are the same if they are not united and teaching the same line of text. This is exactly what makes them different.
    If they are unified under one charter then they are a part of that one entity. If they are a stand alone entity they are one of the over 40,000 different denominations.

    These different denominations and their teachings could fall under: religious groups, sects, cults, movements, body’s, branch’s, persuasions, orders, schools; church’s. No one has the ownership of the word nor has the right to tell a church entity they are not separate and as authoritative as any other man made christian religion.

    A different church or entity: This means a church (just one) or group of churches under one name that believe in christianity. They teach the NT the way they feel it should be taught, just like christian evangelicals, they are all over the place.

    Names of churches vary and could be anything, even the ridiculous:
    The Cowboy Church in the Meadow, could be an entity by it’s self.
    The Church on the Rock (which there are many world wide) are each a separate christian organization. They have no affiliation.
    The Church where the Lions eat the Children could be one.
    The church of Drugs and Sex could be one
    The Roman Catholic Church is one.
    The Catholic Church is one.
    Same for the many Baptist, Church of Christs, Church of the Savior, Church of Jesus and on and on and on.

    There are indeed over 40,000 different christian belief systems that stand alone worldwide. Makes you wonder why christianity can’t even agree with each other?

    Like

  116. Stephen says:

    Unklee

    The First Council Of Nicaea gathered hundreds of pagan and christian leaders. The first thing they did was gather a list of God’s. There were literally hundreds of names given into the basket.
    The names of gods are not connected to the trinity. The trinity took over the triune of gods and as the names slowly changed over thousands of years we ended up with what today’s churches teach.
    The small part of a document has never been proven to be written by John and since it is only a small part it is not comparable to the current day gospel of John as it is called.
    The Catholic church has more documentation than any other christian entity in the world. They teach from these things and even they have concluded that during the Niacaea council these were written and or re-written by priests. The original documents are in pieces as you note.
    The oldest complete bible the Codex Sinaiticas has no mention of Jesus in it as all.
    One could look at this link regarding it’s finding, location, the catholic church agreeing on the gospels being rewritten by priests some 300-400 years after we are told about Jesus living. Just as I have posted, it was created at the First Council of Nicaea by Constantine. The catholic church confirms.

    http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/a-glaring-omission-in-world-s-oldest-bible

    Has some interesting facts in it.

    My best to you all.

    Like

  117. ignorantianescia says:

    Stephen,

    Before I go and address other things, I want to inform you that you can look up the Codex Sinaiticus online.

    http://codexsinaiticus.com/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34

    You can see that Jesus is mentioned often, unless you object to the nomina sacra.

    The First Council Of Nicaea gathered hundreds of pagan and christian leaders. The first thing they did was gather a list of God’s. There were literally hundreds of names given into the basket.

    Do you have any evidence for the purported presence of pagan leaders?

    The first thing done was deciding on the relation between the Father and the Son. At no point were any other gods considered.

    One could look at this link regarding it’s finding, location, the catholic church agreeing on the gospels being rewritten by priests some 300-400 years after we are told about Jesus living. Just as I have posted, it was created at the First Council of Nicaea by Constantine. The catholic church confirms.

    There has been no major rewriting of any gospel since the first century. And all the Synoptics are confirmed

    All that leaves are interpolations of various kinds (the most blatant being the ends to Mark) and transcription errors. None of that supports the alleged priestly rewriting in the third century.

    http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/a-glaring-omission-in-world-s-oldest-bible

    Sorry, that is not a reliable source.

    Like

  118. ignorantianescia says:

    And all the Synoptics are confirmed to be literary units. They are the work of a single level of authorship, each. Only of the gospel of John do some scholars think that it has one or more later editorial layer.

    Like

  119. Stephen says:

    All I can tell you is that the catholic church in Rome has more documents than any other religious group regarding the NT. The Jews own the OT.

    And even they admit the gospels were not written by the 4 bros. MMLJ. They state that they were written by priest(s) under the direction of the church either at or after the first council of Nicaea. No one has more documents than the catholic church to work from.

    The NT text, no matter which text you look at were written/rewritten/transcribed and current day thinking imposed in to them by the church.

    There was never a NT until after the First Council of Nicaea.

    Take any ‘supposed gospel’ and compare it with the original one (can’t be found) or to text known at different times throughout the millennia. You’ll find the current text could not be the original nor could it have been a verbatim translation, the wording and usage of language characters are not correct.

    The study of language is a very difficult study but is as verifiable as finger prints.

    For a simple example. The letter J did not exist until the 1500’s. Therefore any use of the letter J is simply fraud. Same thing for many other characters and words.
    They claim a virgin birth but the current day word used which means ‘virgin’ is not the same word in the ancient texts which simply means ‘young girl’.

    So there is no person with the name Jesus in the early 1st century simply because the letter J did not exist. There was no virgin birth because the original texts/word does not mean virgin, it means young girl.

    Christianity teaches from it’s own table.

    I believe I’d rather eat at Gods table of truth.

    God is my savior, he said so in the book of Hosea.

    Like

  120. unkleE says:

    Hi Warnpeace, thanks for reading and leaving a brief message. It’s nice to see someone enthusiastic about their belief even if I think their belief is mistaken. Best wishes to you!

    Like

  121. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, thanks for replying. I don’t want to be unkind, but do you really expect anyone to believe what you say if it is contrary to the facts? Here’s a couple of examples:

    “There are over 40,000 different sects of christianity.”
    No there are not, unless you define thousands of independent churches as “denominations”, which isn’t the usual meaning of the word.

    “if they are not united and teaching the same line of text.”
    I asked you before what makes you think this is the case, and you haven’t answered. And it is clear why – like I said, there are many thousands of independent churches in Africa and there is no practical way of any of us knowing how united/disunited they all are, and how different their teaching is. And if you don’t know that, you can’t truthfully say what you have said here.

    “There are indeed over 40,000 different christian belief systems”
    So you have offered no evidence that these churches all have different belief systems, and this is no way that anyone could know that.

    “The First Council Of Nicaea gathered hundreds of pagan and christian leaders.”
    Can you name (say) even ten of these pagan leaders?

    “The first thing they did was gather a list of God’s. There were literally hundreds of names given into the basket.”
    Can you give us the historical account that you got this from please?

    “The small part of a document has never been proven to be written by John and since it is only a small part it is not comparable to the current day gospel of John as it is called.”
    It is an exact copy of a small part, and easily comparable to the present day text of John. Where did you get this idea from?

    “The oldest complete bible the Codex Sinaiticas has no mention of Jesus in it as all.”
    As Ignorantianescia has shown, this is completely untrue. You can check it out for yourself. Where did you get such an idea from?

    “Take any ‘supposed gospel’ and compare it with the original one (can’t be found) or to text known at different times throughout the millennia. You’ll find the current text could not be the original nor could it have been a verbatim translation, the wording and usage of language characters are not correct.”
    It is true there are no originals of the NT writings, but there are tens of thousands of copies. This means the text can be known very well, because, unlike most ancient documents, we have so many copies to cross check. That’s why an expert like Helmut Koester can say:

    “Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek… The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.”

    “For a simple example. The letter J did not exist until the 1500’s. Therefore any use of the letter J is simply fraud. Same thing for many other characters and words.”
    Do you understand that the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek word for Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) doesn’t have a J in it, but starts with the Greek letter Iota, and would be pronounced something like “ee-ay-sooce”? It was translated into Latin, Syriac and other languages in the first few centuries, but not into modern English until the 16th century (it was translated into Old English as early as the 7th century). Can you see how your comment is irrelevant?

    Stephen, you are free to believe whatever you want, and you are free to post your beliefs here. But if you are going to make apparently factual statements that are so clearly false, it isn’t going to help your cause. And I wonder if all this might make you think that you have believed a lot of things that are factually wrong, which should cause you to reconsider? Thanks.

    Like

  122. Stephen says:

    Everything I have stated is supported by the catholic encyclopedia and by statements made by the Pope. I was raised a catholic.
    The reason Jesus is used by me as a reference is that christians believe Jesus was mentioned in the early writings, 0 AD to 1499 AD.
    The letter J was not used or inserted into writing until it’s development in 1500.
    So my statement that ‘Jesus’ is not found in it is based upon the fact that the word did not exist and could not since the J was not yet invented.
    This is one of the ways that christianity ‘skirts’ it’s way through scripture.
    The resurrection of Jesus is also not in the codex S. It’s just not there, why? The most important issue regarding christianity is not in the oldest known complete bible? Really, the resurrection is not mentioned?

    I have posted a link explaining how chrisitanity came about during Constantine’s rule, you can look through it and see for yourself.

    Since you note Vatileaks, here is a link to their website:
    http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/a-glaring-omission-in-world-s-oldest-bible

    This pretty much supports my comments about the gospels not being true works by their supposed authors nor the time they were written.

    The RC pope has specifically stated that the gospels were not, in fact written by the 4 individuals (MMLJ) as had been taught for centuries but instead have been identified by handwriting and language use by later day priests.

    No matter how hard anyone tries to convince others that the NT existed before it’s creation at the first council of Nicaea is just through ignorance. There was no NT before Constantine created/assembled/had copies made for use.

    These are Roman Catholic historical facts, not mine.

    I was a Catholic up until the age of 42, and when I started reading more, and deeper and found original texts that were so different from the NT and christian teachings, I kept digging and digging and ended up at the place where I am today.

    God says he is our savior and that besides him there is no other savior. Book of Hosea. It’s in every bible I have ever seen a christian use, yet they don’t know it’s there or have turned their backs on God and chosen Jesus instead. That’s their choice.

    God’s my bud, my savior, my heavenly father.
    Sorry to ramble on.
    Cya

    Like

  123. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, sorry to delay about replying, but I’ve been having problems with the comments not appearing properly.

    Re your last response, I’m sure you are not trying to be devious, but your comment about the letter J is quite misleading. Of course the English word “J-e-s-u-s” wasn’t in the original BIble, or in any Bible until an English translation was made, but Jesus the person (i.e. the person whose name was Yeshua and Ἰησοῦς) is indeed mentioned right through the documents of the New Testament.

    Regarding Codex Sinaiticus, do you realise that the reference you gave doesn’t say what you claimed it said (at least, I can’t see it). So you say “The resurrection of Jesus is also not in the codex S”

    But here is a small part of that document (from Matthew 28):

    5 But the angel answered and said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified;

    6 he is not here; for he has risen as he said: Come, see the place where he lay.

    7 And go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead; and behold, he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him. Lo, I have told you.

    8 And going away quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy, they ran to bring his disciples word.

    9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying: Hail. And they came and laid hold of his feet, and worshipped him.

    10 Then says Jesus to them: Fear not: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

    The resurrection is there because the Codex contains the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and while Mark doesn’t have any details about the resurrection, the other three do.

    Can you see how your claims are quite mistaken, and you have been led astray by an unreliable site?

    Like

  124. Stephen says:

    No I’m comfortable with what i have stated.

    Yes Matty is the one I’m referencing that did not make any reference to the resurrection. Why would 1 out of four not? Why would 3 out of 4 state it? All recollections are similar yet different. The original text do not exist. And this is something that the christian churches have just lied about. For their statements to be true, the gospels were written by MML&J then they’d have to have the originals in hand and if they existed, the catholic church would have them. They are the big dogs on this planet for christian doctrine. The catholic church states that they were written by priests hundreds of years after Jesus’ life.

    And my belief is simple. If an entity will lie and continue to lie for thousands of years then the entity is not to be trusted. The word Virgin, did not exist either, it was simply Young Girl, yet they won’t tell followers these facts because their whole belief system would collapse IMHO. Christians take later day translations by scribes and claim they are the same as the original document where scholars note that translations always take on different meanings due to language barriers and the ruling class at the time of the translation needing to mold the message. This is not new.

    Christians all over the globe have no idea that the word Virgin is not in any ancient document, J is not there either, never was there, yet they’d go to their graves telling you that you were wrong and going straight to hell for stating such a graven lie.

    The catholic church, the largest entity of christians in the world has been admitting to the truth that the gospels were not written by MML&J. It’s in the catholic encyclopedia and the vatican has made many public statements (written and spoken) noting that the gospels were at best actually written @ 400-450 years after the time of Jesus.

    I just get so tired of hearing lies and christians spewing words that are in fact not accurate and never were in the ancient texts. I even got blocked from some other blog by TE Hannah that just could not answer the questions I asked and he got cold feet and just blocked me. They do not have a person named Jesus Christ. Jesus did not exist as a word and Christ is an adjective for gods sake. If his name were Jesus and he was the anointed one, it would or should be said like this; Jesus the Christ. Any christian that does not know this is merely a sunday christian and not a true follower of God’s words IMHO.

    CYa I’m on the road.

    Like

  125. Stephen says:

    I forgot to add, all christians can count on are man made documents created-rewritten-doctored at the first council of Nicaea as noted by the Catholic church in their own archives/records.
    The church knows yet christians do not.
    Believers in God being their savior as stated by God in the book of Hosea have Gods words to rely on.
    And the Jesus never said he was the savior. These words do not exist yet christians still extrapolate it from man made texts.

    Like

  126. unkleE says:

    Stephen, I just quoted you section that talks about Jesus’ resurrection. How can you say it’s not there?

    You are also wrong about “the word Virgin is not in any ancient document”. It is in the New Testament Greek, but it isn’t in the Old Testament Hebrew.

    And I have explained that it is irrelevant that the J isn’t there because J is an English letter, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

    I think it is obviously pointless continuing this conversation, but I thought I would ask. Does it not worry you that in these three clear and factual ways, you have been shown to be speaking things that are not true? Does that not worry you even a little?

    Like

  127. unkleE says:

    It contains (I understand) the entire New Testament, which was written in the first century, and the Codex was written in the 4th century. But it doesn’t matter when it was written. You have said it didn’t contain a number of things when I fact it does. Your source for that information was wrong, or you misunderstood it.

    I suspect the latter, because there is an element of truth in several of your claims.

    e.g. Mark’s gospel doesn’t mention the resurrection (only the empty tomb), but the other gospels do mention it. Isaiah doesn’t use the word for virgin, but the New Testament writers do. The NT doesn’t use the English letter J because it is written in Greek, but it does mention Jesus.

    Like

  128. Stephen says:

    It contains (I understand) the entire New Testament, which was written in the first century, and the Codex was written in the 4th century.
    NO, YOU ARE WRONG. IT WAS WRITTEN AND DOCUMENTED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AT/DURING/AFTER THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS DOCUMENTED THIS OVER A 1000 YEARS AGO. IT’S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION UNLESS YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH THEM. THE DOCUMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN THE BASIS FOR THE WRITING OF THE NT ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST. THE NT IS A NEW/MAN MADE/MAN WRITTEN DURING THIS FIRST OF SOME 21 COUNCILS. THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY AND HISTORICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY PROVED LONG LONG AGO. WHY THE OTHER CHRISTIAN SECTS DON’T BELIEVE SCIENTIFIC PROVEN FACTS IS BEYOND ME. STUDY THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND THE PAPAL STATEMENTS PLEASE. THESE ARE FACTS, NOT MY IDEAS.

    But it doesn’t matter when it was written.
    IT DOES MATTER WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN. IF IT WERE WRITTEN IN THE EARLY 1st CENTURY THEN THERE WOULD BE DOCUMENTS AROUND TO SUPPORT IT. SINCE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN AT THAT TIME BUT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE CAT. CHURCH THAT IT WAS WRITTEN AT/DURING THE FIRST COUNCIL IN 320-325 AD THERE IS NO DOUBTING THAT IT IS SIMPLY A MAN MADE DOCUMENT. EVEN THE CODEX S AND CODEX V ARE DATED LONG LONG AFTER JESUS’ EXISTENCE. WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR CHRISTIANS TO NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT?

    You have said it didn’t contain a number of things when I fact it does.
    I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT MAKING A BETTER STATEMENT, ON THE ROAD, IN AND OUT OF THE RV AND JUST DID A POOR JOB. MY BAD. BUT THE FACTS ARE NOT CHANGEABLE. JESUS THE NAME DID NOT EXIST. THAT’S THE PRIMARY ITEM I WAS TRYING TO GET TO YOU WITH.

    THE WORD VIRGIN IS NOT IN THE ANCIENT TEXTS, BUT THE WORDS YOUNG GIRL ARE. THERE WAS NO VIRGIN BIRTH. IF JESUS ACTUALLY LIVED ON EARTH THEN HE WAS BORN LIKE ANY OTHER HUMAN, VAGINALLY AFTER FERTILIZATION OF THE EGG BY A MAN/BEING/?? BUT WITHOUT ANY DOUBT MARY WAS NOT A VIRGIN. JESUS HAD AN OLDER BROTHER BY THE WAY. STILL BELIEVE A VIRGIN BIRTH?

    LASTLY, YOU AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIANS RUN FROM THE MOST CHALLENGING STATEMENT I HAVE MADE TO YOU.
    THE BOOK OF HOSEA, GOD SAYS IN HIS OWN WORDS THAT BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO OTHER SAVIOR.
    WE CAN’T HAVE TWO SAVIORS AND WE SURELY WOULD BE FOOLS TO TURN OUR BACKS ON GOD FOR ‘ANYONE’.

    WHEN CHRISTIANS CAN ANSWER:
    HOW CAN THEY TURN THE BACKS ON GOD WHEN HE SAYS HE IS THE ONLY SAVIOR.
    HOW CAN THEY BELIEVE IN A VIRGIN BIRTH WHEN THAT WORD IS NOT IN THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS AND HAS BEEN STATED SUCH BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    HOW CAN THEY BELIEVE IN GOSPELS THAT WERE WRITTEN AND ARE STATED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WERE WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER JESUS EXISTED, IF HE DID.

    WHEN YOU AND OR OTHERS CAN EXPLAIN THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS, NOTHING HIDDEN, NO TRICKS, JUST GODS WORDS AND SIMPLE FACTS, THEN YOU CAN JOIN IN A CONVERSATION THAT WILL ACTUALLY NET SOMETHING FOR US ALL.

    UNTIL THEN, THIS IS JUST A DEBATE. ONE SIDE, MINE, HAS THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND GOD.
    THE OTHER SIDE IS BASED ON MAN MADE DOCUMENTS FROM @ 320 325 AD.

    Cya
    stephen

    Like

  129. Scott says:

    Wow. Stephen, you have pretty much discredited yourself. Unklee has been reasoned, thoughtful, and has provided plenty of explanation and information for discussion. You basically come across like (and I am very loosely paraphrasing here): “Believe what I am saying because I know what I’m talking about and the discussion is over.” And then you resort to YELLING. This is kind of how some dads deal with their children. Generally not helpful for the children and definitely not helpful to your cause here when dealing with other adults.

    You have harped on the “Virgin” word not being in the OT. Unklee AGREED with you, yet you still persist in beating this dead horse. Unklee agreed… count your small victory and move on.

    You are coming across as a tyrant who commands all to believe the way you do just because you say so and because you ‘know’. Sounds like how you describe the very Christians you appear to despise.

    If you’d like to potentially influence others who may read these discussions, you might want to change your approach, lighten up, and address things specifically, thoughtfully and respectfully. Otherwise, you will probably turn away many people, even if you are right.

    And now you may flame me, if, indeed, that is your bent.

    Like

  130. unkleE says:

    Well Stephen, it seems you aren’t interested in historical facts, for so far we have seen several cases where I have shown evidence that contradicts statements you have made without offering evidence.

    Now we have a few more historical errors. Let’s look at a few:

    1. You have misquoted that website you referenced. It doesn’t say what you have said (that there is no mention of the resurrection in the Codex), it actually says what I have said – that the gospel of Mark doesn’t record the resurrection (but the others do).

    2. You said the NT was written in the fourth century, but offer no evidence for this. It is a strange claim, because Wikipedia records no less than 38 copies of parts of the NT dated before the fourth century! No wonder no reputable historian suggests the dates you suggest. The late date has not been proved, and I challenge you to show where it has been proved.

    3. It is true, then, as you say, that “If it were written in the early 1st century then there would be documents around to support it.”. For as I have shown, there are indeed documents around to support it. But if you mean there would have been more documents around, then that is NOT TRUE. There are very few documents for most ancient texts, and the New Testament has many more than ANY OTHER document, as I’ve already shown you.

    4. It is NOT TRUE that Jesus’ name didn’t exist back then. It is TRUE that the word J-e-s-u-s did not exist, but as I have already explained, that wasn’t his name – that is a translation of his name, which DID EXIST, and I have already shown you what it is.

    5. Yes the word Virgin is not in Isaiah 7, but IT IS in the NT. If you don’t believe in the virgin birth, that is no big deal to me. But you should stick to the facts.

    6. Since you think that no christian can answer your question about God our saviour in Hosea, let me give my answer.

    (i) It is a clear Biblical truth that God is our saviour. It isn’t only in Hosea, but 24 times in the OT and 13 times in the NT – 37 times in all. I can’t imagine any christians not accepting the truth of that statement.

    (ii) But it also says that Jesus is our saviour in many verses in the NT. One example: God’s angels announce Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:11: “Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord”.

    (iii) You seem to think that if God is our saviour, Jesus can’t be. But John 10:30 says: “I and the Father are one.” So they can both be our saviour because they are ONE. This is confirmed in Titus 1:3-4, where Paul mentions both God and Jesus as saviour:

    “and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.”

    It is even hinted in the OT when Isaiah says the coming servant of the Lord will be pierced for our sins, for the Lord has laid on him all our sins.

    So, to sum up, I have answered the questions you have asked, and shown that mostly you have misunderstood the historical sources and facts.

    So my question to you is, do you base your beliefs on the facts, or on something that is mistaken?

    Like

  131. Scott says:

    I like good discussion but I despise bully tactics – gets old fast. One who has truth on their side does not need to resort to such tactics. Reasonable adults ought be able to discuss dissenting views and opinions reasonably and respectfully. Sometimes we give our opinions and beliefs the weight of facts. Are we secure enough to reexamine our own thoughts and beliefs to determine what is truly a fact and what is only our own opinion or something we just believe in spite of the evidence? Interesting discussions. Thanks for your contributions.

    Like

  132. Stephen says:

    Scott,
    I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m here to learn but I require something factual that I can use as a pillar to support my beliefs on. I think most people are this way, but I could be wrong.

    The NT has been proven scientifically and religiously to have been written in or @ 325 AD at the first council of Nicaea. I have made this statement dozens of times.
    It was overseen by a Pagan ruler, Constantine.

    I don’t put as much credit into the NT because I know per the catholic church when it was written and by whom (in general because they only note it was written at the first council of Nicaea @ 325 AD) but it was not written as it is taught to be by christian preachers as ‘in the time of the Christ’. I was a catholic till age 42 and then decided there had been too much lying.

    God says he is the only savior. God, not man, not some document that man wrote centuries after the time of the Christ.

    The all caps is due to me not having a different text to use to differentiate my statements from Unklee’s . Gosh, I’m sorry to have caused such a problem due to caps. I’ll do better next time.

    Jumping to conclusions is as bad as profiling a person, ‘judge not least ye be judged’ or something like that? Not a good thing to live by.

    I’m just happy as a lark to know God is my savior because he says so and for no other reason. This is the primary question that drew me into these chat rooms in the first place after spending 10 years reading ancient text and seeing I had been lied to as a catholic.

    I think the world of Unklee and enjoy the responses. If Unklee has a source or link that will provide historical documents from the time of the Christ that are proven to be the original gospels I’d absolutely love to go there and look them up and have my Jewish friends go over them with an interlinear and get a chance to see what they actually are and what they say. Please send me the links, really.

    Hope you understand me a bit better, but if not, may God bless you and yours and one day when we meet Him, we’ll both be told the whole deal straight from Gods words and there won’t be any questions left for either of us.

    Cya

    Like

  133. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    Thank you for your response. I would like to address just one assertion that you continue to make: “…it {NT} was written at the first council of Nicaea @ 325”.

    I have had heard this from other people too. However, when they did their research, they were confused. They confused “writing” with “compiling”, which is a common mistake. The council of Nicaea in 325AD gathered “existing” books together to compile them into one volume.

    To disprove they were “written” in (or even around) 325AD, all we have to do is find evidence of even one book that is earlier than that date.

    While I do not hold Wikipedia up as the authority on everything, there is a decently written and sourced article here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

    This article is not specifically dedicated to this exact topic, but in it they have referenced several NT documents that have been substantiated as having existed between 125 and 250AD. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that the NT was “written” at the first council of Nicaea in 325.

    Maybe what you meant is that it was “compiled” at that time. If so, your error can be understood. But if you insist it was “written”, you place yourself in direct contradiction to this article and the sources they cite.

    Like

  134. Stephen says:

    Scott,
    Thanks for the link, I have it and many others.
    I step away from anything that is only in part, not in whole, since we do not have a complete picture to see or compare to. To do otherwise for me is to just enter the world of guessing and I don’t like guessing when my soul is on the line.

    Plus as many people do not know, documents cannot be carbon dated. Scholars use records, handwriting styles, the use of letters and characters and such to guess at a day/date/time of a document. These are simply guesses.
    I would never say that there are not some parts ad pieces of text from long before the first council of Nicaea, and, I hope I have never said anything that comes across that way. We have documents from civilizations thousands upon thousands of years past.

    However at this first council, there were records kept of the meetings, discussions, attendees, and results of this council. We have a paper trail for the first time and a single complete document, the NT, that the christian world adheres to. This is the first and only time this has happened in history.

    According to the largest christian assembly, the Roman Catholic Church, the attendees came to this first council (some 21 have been held in total) and the organizer was a Pagan ruler and the attendees were split between christian, pagan and the other religions that existed at that time. The RCC goes into great detail showing the records from the meeting. The gathering of the many names of Gods that were used by people all across the globe as was known at that time. It tells of the whittling down of the list of god names to a group of 5 or so that were universally understood as representative of all people there. Many of the god names were simple later day names for the very same god from times before and could be excluded due to being in duplicate.

    It goes on to note that the entire known group of texts, regardless of which attendee brought them, were read through, discussed, argued over, and finally re-written by scribes to meet the ‘churches’ wishes to bring together all the people as agreed upon at this council.

    They go into very specific language to note that the scribes at this council were given dictation to write the NT page by page by page and after an extensive period of dictation and writing the council came up with one complete manuscript that was agreeable to all, or so it says.

    Next there were @ 50 copies produced and distributed to the ‘most noble’ religious leaders to read over and send their acceptance of the very first complete NT in history.

    Before this, there were hundreds if not thousands of documents written by an unknown number of priests, pagans, etc teaching their line of christianity. This council was scheduled to create one single, NT, for all to use. So, the first time a complete, agreed upon by the christian nations, NT, was created in whole was at this first council.

    Could someone else have used the term NT? Sure. But it is not here in our hands to look at, to read, to understand and or compare to any other document. Only the NT, as written/composed/translated/assembled at this first council exists.

    Lots of things are said but are not proven. And that’s a stumbling block for us all.

    I like paper trails and there are way too many of them regarding the current day in use, worldwide accepted NT, for me to believe that prior to the first council’s creation of the NT there were others in complete form equal to what is now in use.
    But it could happen. We just don’t have a complete NT from any other time frame and thus must accept the one in use as the first complete NT regardless of what we may want wish or desire.

    I lived under it for 42 years. Was told it was a sin to eat meat on friday?! This is not a sin or a commandment. It’s church/christian/catholic doctrine and is the reason why there are so many conflicts in christianity.

    Mankind has taken Gods words which are in my opinion very simple to follow and or understand and has created this monster of a man made religion with so many different rules/reg’s and understandings of what the NT says that it has destroyed the main goal or purpose of christianity. Same thing has happened to Islam.

    CYa
    sorry to be long winded.

    Like

  135. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    Thanks for your response. I appreciate where you are coming from. I am not a defender of the RCC by any stretch of the imagination. I have many issues with things they have done and taught through the ages as it sounds you do too.

    I am, however, a staunch proponent for truth and accuracy, and I like scientific and logical methodologies, discovery and problem solving, discussions, and exploration, etc.

    I have not questioned your salvation, your belief system, your thoughts about the RCC, or anything else at this point. I only bring into question your statement that they wrote the NT. From your response, it appears we are not speaking about the same thing. Please bear with me as I attempt to further explain.

    I agree with you there is no other NT to compare with, look at, etc. The council DID “create” the “NT”. We are in agreement on this point. The council DID pick and choose which writings to include within this new publication they were creating. I think we can agree on that, yes?

    What I’m trying to point out is that the NT is just a collection of writings that existed PRIOR to the compilation of the NT. Not just “any” old writings, but the very writings that make up the NT. And that many of those writings have been authenticated to have existed between 125 and 250AD. This appears to be the sticking point that you do not agree with. Since nobody I know was around at that time to authenticate it firsthand (although, my grandpa was quite old…he actually knew Jesse James! LOL!), and (I’m just guessing here… going out on a limb…) nobody you know was alive then either to authenticate this firsthand, we have to rely on whatever scientific or logical methodologies can be employed to determine the accuracy, or lack thereof, of these claims that have been made about the timing of these writings.

    While we cannot empirically authenticate these findings firsthand, and I don’t think we need to go into the minutia of all the scrutiny that has gone into this process (bore the future readers…), in my opinion there is enough evidence that seems to validate these claims, so I choose to believe these findings to be fairly accurate. You are free to disagree with these findings and we can just agree to disagree because without new or different evidence, I will not be persuaded otherwise, and it seems you will not be either. And we don’t need to continue beating this silly ol’ dead nag… 🙂 I think we have presented some interesting information for future readers to think about. (The proprietor of this website may have to start remunerating us for our fine contributions to his website’s content… LOL!)

    That is the only thing I wanted to point out in this discussion. Your salvation is between you and God. Your disagreement with the RCC is between you and them (and probably shared by many people). Your disagreement with the “Christian Community” at large is, again, between you and them. I was not trying to address any of those other issues.

    Again, thank you for your reasonable responses. I appreciate the discussion. 🙂

    Like

  136. Scott says:

    OH… And don’t EVEN get me started on all the man-made rules and regulations that have been invented for various (and nefarious) reasons… We will have ALL SORTS of common ground there! I will buy you a virtual drink and we can drink to each others’ laments! LOL!

    Like

  137. Stephen says:

    Scott,
    thanks again.
    i only ever ask, so as to learn.
    i just have a high benchmark.
    i have some antiquated thoughts for certain;
    Besides me there is no other savior being one of them.
    Unless I see Gods words giving this position to someone else, Jesus per se, then He’s my guy, my savior, my dad.

    So it’s as you say, just personal beliefs and we all have the right to what we believe.

    my best to you and yours
    I’m going back out to fish.
    Cya

    Like

  138. Stephen says:

    You are so correct and they are a huge problem for me to understand. It’s as if we are in OZ and the church is behind the curtain dishing out what we need to know and believe but won’t give me anything to hang my hat on.
    Really sad what humans do.

    Like

  139. ignorantianescia says:

    Hi Stephen,

    You are surely right about our right to our personal beliefs, of any kind. But as I analyse your religious beliefs I don’t see how they require the beliefs about history that you hold. I mean that I think you can believe in those religious tenets without the historical beliefs you have expressed. In fact the latter group of beliefs seems very unwieldy to me, as they would not be accepted by the majority of scholars. Surely the truth of your faith is independent from historical judgement?

    Like

  140. Stephen says:

    These threads blossom into many different petals and seem to veer away from the ‘stem of the conversation’ so to speak.

    I entered this blog with a few specific questions.
    The first one was and remains unanswered with supporting documents outside the christian church internal documents;
    How can christians believe in jesus as their savior when God himself states that besides him there is no other savior.
    God is either the savior or he’s a liar. Go figure?
    I ask this because christians become as angry and mean tempered as muslims do when someone challenges their beliefs with a simple factual statement.

    I was raised a catholic/christian and am no longer such because I have read hundreds of original documents that were translated verbatim that have been clearly proven to dismiss much of what the christian church is based on.

    The Jews that I know that have provided these documents and the verbatim translations don’t care about chrisitanity at all. They just provide the docs and the translation, verbatim, and leave it at that.

    The many different courses this conversation has taken is as much my fault as it is any other person, however, the basic questions never get answered except with ‘church doctrine’ which is the source of question in the first place.

    It’s like taking a criminals word for something another criminal said. Why would anyone listen to evidence from a criminal?

    Anyway, belief is belief, and to each their own.

    Just gets old.
    Cya

    Like

  141. Scott says:

    Stephen, I am hurt, cut to the quick. I thought we had something. Surely you’re not lumping ME in with this statement also:

    “I ask this because christians become as angry and mean tempered as muslims do when someone challenges their beliefs with a simple factual statement.”

    Are you?? Although… I admit… I did call you out a bit for what I perceived earlier in this blog. But we have since shaken hands and had a good and friendly exchange, have we not? Even though we must agree to disagree at this point on the authenticity of the NT documents. (Or are you mad at me because I am immutable on this subject? 😉 )

    Now that that is off my chest… 🙂 Hope your fishing was productive! I’m a bit jealous… 🙂 Are you in the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere? Fishing around here (northern) would involve poking holes in ice…

    I do have a real question for you though. How do you read Genesis 3:15? What do you make of it?

    Ah… to be relaxing on a lake… in 80 degree water… sipping the wonderful elixirs of life! 🙂

    Like

  142. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, it might have been your intention to focus on one matter, but you made quite a few statements that we have shown reasons to believe were not historically correct. Does your latest comment mean you accept what we have said?

    You say “How can christians believe in jesus as their savior when God himself states that besides him there is no other savior.
    God is either the savior or he’s a liar. Go figure?”

    I gave you an answer to that question and you didn’t acknowledge that – perhaps you missed it. It’s at point 6 in this comment. Perhaps you’d like to go back and check it out – at least then you’d have seen one christian response that wasn’t “angry and mean tempered”.

    You’ll notice that my answer was based on the Bible, just as your belief is. I have little interest in arguing about your belief, that’s why I haven’t said much about it. But perhaps you could answer this question please – Do you think the Old Testament passage in Hosea is from God but the New Testament passages I quoted (Luke 2:11, John 10:30 and Titus 1:3-4) are not from God, and if so, what are your reasons? Thanks.

    Like

  143. Stephen says:

    No not lumping you in with any other person. As I noted and you seemed to agree, or visa versa, each person has a right to understand the texts as they best see fit or can best use to live a good life.

    Genesis 3:15 part of the first book, is not really something that has ever been explained or defined in total satisfaction for everyone. There are so many ways to interpret texts that it needs to be taken not as a separate statement but rather as a part of a whole writing. Some even gather a sexual connotation from the serpent and Eve’s contact. I say this because the ‘serpent’ is not by all considered an actual ‘snake’ but a type of creature God had created to help Adam take care of the Garden of Eden and these creatures were under the authority of Adam and it is said by some to have made them angry to be subject to this ‘human’. These or some of these creatures may have had a snake like outer skin. I’m just providing what others have wondered.

    But if this one liner is read and in my own opinion and not based on any other persons belief I’d say that this is a statement by God, because of A&E breaking the agreement with God to not eat of the forbidden fruits (there were two trees, one the tree of knowledge and one the tree of life), that God has placed a conflict between Eve and the serpent (possibly right and wrong). Since the words his seed and her seed’ is used, it seems limited to her children Cain Able and Seth being the ones to bruise the serpents offspring head, the serpent in this case being claimed to be Satan or the Devil but not being actually stated so in Genesis. In fact I’m not certain Satan is used anywhere until the NT but I’m going on an old mans memory.
    So who the serpents seeds are is really an unknown to me. Can only be speculated in my opinion.

    I think that this is one of the many passages that has an open ended meaning to many. It may represent evil, or sin, or just Eve’s life and that this would be a life long remembrance she would be faced with, every time she sees a snake (a temptation) she would be reminded of her breaking the rule with God. I don’t call it an agreement because nowhere that I have ever read do Adam and or Eve say, ‘Okay God we agree with the rules.’ I think this is a very loose, open ended discussion one could have.

    Cya
    Yeah fishing is a calming activity. Grandsons love it.

    Like

  144. Scott says:

    Stephen, Thanks for your reply. Interesting thoughts. Some take this passage as the first of many Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of a Messiah to save Israel. What is your view on the OT prophecies that seem to be pointing to a coming Messiah? (If you want specific references, I can get them…)

    Like

  145. Stephen says:

    Any specific reference to a named Messiah in the OT is non existent IMHO.

    The list of ‘claimed messiahs’ is in the dozens, including Jesus which is actually listed under the claimed messiahs of the Jews. So many have come, none have fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah as of yet. And having the chance for one or more to come multiple times??????? is really just stacking the deck. Nowhere in the OT does it talk about any messiah coming multiple times.

    There are texts that if interpreted in a certain way are believed to mean the coming of a messiah, but not by name.

    The messiah of the OT if one were to say, ‘okay, they were talking about someone coming some time later on as a messiah to save our sorry souls’, there could still not be any connection to any person in the OT NT by name.

    This is the problem with the belief in a specific messiah, no matter which side one is to wander around on. None is stated as being the messiah by Gods words and I only listen to Gods words. He’s kinda the top dog, point of the spear, the big jabronie. So I’m only listening to his words.

    Now I could be wrong if when God said he was the only savior, and if I’m wrong then I’ve got a bone to pick with him about leading me off in the wrong direction, but I’m not too worried that I have to consider God lying to me.

    I’m not saying God won’t be back, he will. He just was too smart to let us in on the details and kinda says this. We’ll never know the day date time that this occupation on earth will end and judgement day will be upon us (which i truly believe will happen). It’ll just happen, “POOF!”

    I’m kinda looking forward to meeting God and asking a boat load of questions. I’m certain he will either be very patient or be irritated with my questions (I believe I could talk to him forever about many questions I have), but I’ll take the risk. I believe since he is my lord/savior/father that he’s already met others that were or are as irritating as I could be in terms of questions. You folks on this blog have a pretty good idea how irritating I can be, and though it is never meant to be, it’s still an indisputable fact about my inquisitiveness.

    Overall I don’t say there is not ‘someone’ coming. I just believe God will be that someone and that he may very well bring a hoard of messengers with him to thin the herd, but I really don’t see anything in the OT that gives me a specific person that is named that I can hang my hat on.

    Could others? Certainly. But they would not be doing so based on God saying ‘person x is the messiah, watch out for when he comes!’. But I could be wrong.

    Cya
    Stephen

    Like

  146. Stephen says:

    Have you ever researched these Gods from the past? BC past?
    There are many documents about these Gods.
    I’m not saying they are factual but they have a duplicate life much like that of Jesus and is why many people question much of christianity’s claims.

    This is not Gods word nor it is something to hang your hat on but is why there are so many doubts about any man made church/religion.

    Just asking.

    Like

  147. Scott says:

    Stephen,
    First, I think it is wise to ask questions if one does not know or is seeking info. Being irritating is completely different from asking questions (IMHO). 🙂 If someone chooses to get irritated because you ask questions… that is on them. But if you are intentionally being obstinate, ornery, etc., then that is on you. 🙂

    Now – to some of your points.

    I (and I’m sure MANY people) are in agreement with you on what you said here:
    “Any specific reference to a named Messiah in the OT is non existent”
    I agree. The Messiah is not “named” in the OT – at least anywhere that I have read. So we can agree on that point. 🙂

    It is my belief that the one who would be the Messiah should fulfill the prophecies that are listed in the OT. So your statement:
    “So many have come, none have fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah as of yet”
    – what we need to have in order to continue a conversation on this point is your list of scriptural prophecies so we can compare apples to apples. Would you be willing to provide a list of what you consider to be the scriptural prophecies from your point of view (does not have to be “complete”) so we can continue this conversation? We can address one at a time…

    I kind of found this statement of yours to be fun and interesting:
    “We’ll never know the day date time that this occupation on earth will end and judgement day will be upon us (which i truly believe will happen). It’ll just happen, “POOF!”” – Just curious… Did you come up with this belief on your own? Or do you base it on something you read in scripture or heard preached? 🙂

    And, yes, I have done some (but not super-extensive) research on the gods in the past. These types of studies can be interesting, but, like I think you are saying, I also have not found any real basis of truth in them.

    Like

  148. Stephen says:

    There is no doubt something rattling around in my head that I probably read that indicated we would never know when the end will actually come. There won’t be some signal a week in advance or messengers shouting out ‘get in line, judgement to your left, keep moving.’ But I’m certain we will not know the actual day/date/time simply because Hashem does not want us to know. Seems logical.

    Regarding the prophecies and the messiah, you have to get past the ‘virgin birth’ with Jesus and anyone else, before you can claim a messiah. I’ll look around but the use of the word prophecies is really a stretch. One that comes to mind is that he would be born of a woman!? Really? Not that much of a claim and the word or words that ‘this is a phrophecy’ does not exist. It’s just a meaning that someone took from a line or two of text and has claimed it means something special? I don’t get it.

    Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)
    15
    And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
    he will crush[b] your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

    Someone had to really put their thinking hat on to read the above and come to the conclusion that the messiah was the topic of discussion, IMHO.

    As I have noted before the ‘original text’ do not say Virgin, they say Young Girl. Only after the Greek scribes (I believe) did a translation was the statement changed so this claim is a hurdle that no claimed messiah can get over IMHO.

    Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV)

    14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]

    Again, the word Virgin is not in the original text so this can’t have any sort of validity since the original text is not used?

    As far as the list of gods, there is as much supporting each of them as there are any other. None of them have a foot up because my God is the one true God, the God of Creation, Hashem.

    Mankind is an odd creature. He is not happy being what he is and claws and scratches to get higher up the mountain, all the time slipping back down, pushing others out of the way, and doing any and everything he needs to make ground up the mountain to be king. In the end he’s just wasted his time trying to create something to support his actions when all he needed to do was take a knee and ask God for some assistance.

    But I digress.

    CYa

    Like

  149. Stephen says:

    Regarding these old documents:

    You have noted:
    ‘have been authenticated to have existed between 125 and 250AD’

    (one must be careful that they also understand carbon dating is useless in these cases and that handwriting style which is used to gather a time frame for literature can easily be counterfeit if the scribe is knowledgeable of languages.)

    I have no problem with these documents. Never have. They are what they are and that’s okay with me. I do not know if they are 125 or 250 AD or later.

    They were created long after the death of Jesus and all of his apostles.
    So these are ‘hand me down stories that are many generations old’.
    This type of text has weak legs since ‘mankind’ wrote them.

    These texts even if the were all in a pile at the first council are different than those that were re-written to be ‘in the NT’. However, if you have one of the old texts you can compare to the actual NT created at the first council I’d be glad to review the two side by side with you.

    They are not, were not, verbatim copies of these old docs, they were read, explained by 4th century men and written to make sense to them at that time. This all by it’s self changes any possibility that they are the original text is all I’m saying.

    The NT is not Gods words. The NT is the words of men of the 4th century with an agenda. One that exists even today. To control people through fear of damnation.

    CYa

    Like

  150. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    First, your 2nd post above about the “old documents” being “authenticated” between 125 and 250AD… you had previously responded to that information so I’m assuming this is just an inadvertent re-posting because my most recent posts had nothing to do with the “old documents” or the NT. You have already made your stance clear: you do not believe these documents (the “old NT documents”) to hold any spiritual significance at all due to multiple reasons. I am conceding that you do not believe in the authenticity of these so that we can move on and do not have to keep rehashing the same stuff. Let’s freshen this up a bit…

    Next.

    No, I do not think we have get over the whole “Virgin” prophecy because you have already stated that “Virgin” was not in the original text. I asked you for what you considered prophecy, not what you think others consider prophecy. If you do not think there is prophecy regarding a Messiah in the OT, just say so. If you do think there is prophecy in the OT regarding a Messiah, then I’d like your verses.

    I’m going to help you out here. Below is a list of verses generally considered (by those who consider such things) to be Messianic prophecies. You can pick and choose which ones to discuss or throw out. Ignore the “Virgin” ones because I already know you don’t like those. (Please forgive if there are any type-os… these were painstakingly retyped from http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/365-messianic-prophecies and there may be slight inaccuracies, so you can always go back to the website to double-check… after all, it pays to double-check… 😉 )

    Gen 3:15, 5:24, 9:26-27, 12:3,7, 14:18, 17:19, 21:12, 22:8, 18, 26:2-5, 49:10.
    Ex 3:13,14, 12:5,13, 21-27, 46, 13:2, 15:2, 15:11, 17:6, 33:19
    Lev: 14:11, 16:15-17, 27, 17:11, 23:36-37
    Num: 9:12, 21:9, 24:8, 17-19
    Deut: 18:15-16, 18-19, 21:13-23
    Ruth 4:4-9
    1 Sam: 2:10
    2 Sam: 7:12, 14, 16, 23:2-4
    2 Kings: 2:11
    1 Chron: 17:11-13
    Job 19:23-27
    Ps: 2:1-3, 6-8, 12, 8:2, 5-6, 16:9-11, 17:15, 22:1-2, 7-9, 14-18, 20-22,27, 31, 23:1, 24:3, 27:12, 30:3, 31:5, 11, 13-15, 34:20, 35:11, 19, 38:11, 40:2-9, 14, 41:9, 45:2, 6-8, 49:15, 55:12-14, 15, 68:18, 69:4, 8-9, 14-21, 26, 72:10-11, 16-17, 78:1-2, 88:8, 89:26-27, 35-37, 90:2, 92:11-12, 97:9, 100:5, 102:1-11, 16, 25-27, 109:4, 7-8, 25, 110:1, 4, 112:4, 118:17-18, 22-23, 26, 132:11, 138;1-6, 147:3, 6
    Prov: 1:23, 8:22-23, 30:4
    SS: 5:16
    Is: 2:2-4, 4:2, 5:1-6, 6:1, 9-12, 7:14, 8:8, 14, 9:1-2, 6-7, 11:1-2, 4, 10, 12:2, 16:4-5, 22:21-25, 25:8, 26:19, 28:16, 29:13-14, 32:2, 33:22, 35;4-5, 40:3-4, 9, 11, 42:1-4, 6-7, 13-25, 43:11, 44:3, 45:23, 48:12, 17, 49:1, 5-7, 50:3-6, 52:4-5, 7, 13-15, 53:1-12, 55:1, 3-5, 59:15-16, 20, 60:1-3, 61:1-2, 62:1-2, 11, 63:1-3, 8-9, 65:9, 17-25, 66:18-19
    Jer: 23:5-6, 30:9, 31:15, 22, 31, 33:14-15
    Ezek: 17:22-24, 21:26-27, 34:23-24
    Dan: 2:34-35, 44-45, 7:13-14, 27, 9:24-26, 10:5-6
    Hos: 3:5, 11:1, 13:14
    Joel 2:28-32
    Micah 2:12-13, 4:1-8, 5:2
    Haggai 2:6-9, 23
    Joel 2:28-32
    Amos 8:9, 9:11-12
    Hab 2:14
    Zech: 2:10-13, 2:8, 6:12-13, 9:9, 10:4, 11:4-13, 12:10, 13:7
    Mal: 3:1, 3-6

    You are obviously a man of the OT. These are all from the OT. Do you believe in prophecy or not? (If not, this will be a very short conversation… LOL!!) If you do, I’m only interested in the ones that YOU think are prophecy. I am not interested in you blasting away at others’ beliefs. I am only asking about yours. Capisci, mi amigo? (Yes, I DO know that those are from Italian AND Spanish… I just like the way it sounds… LOL! 🙂 )

    Like

  151. Stephen says:

    I am sorry, you had noted the 125/250 range of years regarding the NT so I just responded with my opinion. We can leave that horse in the desert I guess.

    To the ‘prophecies’ (listed by you or online, in books, bible, etc)

    In my opinion, they are not what I call a prophecy.
    Maybe some do but these make no specific statement of a messiah coming at any time at all. These speak of events in the past, possibly in the future but we can’t tell until it happens I’d assume.

    In fact many believe the messiah has already come long since? Who knows? When Israel is referred to as the daughter of Jerusalem, it’s not in a human physical person sense so one has to read a lot and understand the people and times to come to a modern day answer I believe. People were much simpler in their thinking thousands of years ago. It shows in their writings.

    But I just don’t see any evidence in these relating to the term ‘Messiah or a Prophecy regarding Jesus or for that matter any other person by name’.

    I just guess I can’t make that connection. Here is a simple example.
    Joel 2:28-32 (just one of many but it’ll do)

    28“And it shall come to pass afterwardThat I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,Your old men shall dream dreams,Your young men shall see visions.29And also on My menservants and on My maidservantsI will pour out My Spirit in those days.30“And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:Blood and fire and pillars of smoke.31The sun shall be turned into darkness,And the moon into blood,Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.32And it shall come to passThat whoever calls on the name of the LordShall be saved.For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,As the Lord has said,Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

    No mention of a messiah.

    And as I have always noted, and is stated in this passage, ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ Not call on Jesus, or his ‘son’, but calls on the Lord. There is only one God/Lord/Creator for me. If Jesus existed he would have been a son of God, not God, not the Lord but the son of the Lord as I am a son of the Lord and a son of God. We all are as males. Females are daughters of God as well.

    But I have never been a ‘reach’ type person, I just like the written word and try to read it as it is and apply it to my life and my understanding and not try to make or create something that is not there ‘literally’.

    Cya

    Like

  152. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    Thank you for your answer. I really appreciated how you dealt with the issue at hand directly, openly and honestly from your viewpoint. I think I am understanding more what you are saying and I appreciate that.

    By the way, did that horse we left in the desert have a name??? 😉

    Now back to – somewhat – serious commentary… 🙂

    If I may be so bold, in my own words I would like to try and summarize what I think I’ve heard you say as it relates to OT prophecy in scripture. Here goes…

    So, would it be fair to say, then, that since you tend to a more literal kind of guy, and that you don’t like to read things into passages that really aren’t there, you don’t really look at any OT scripture references as “Messianic prophecy” because they don’t contain the specific verbiage or terminology that states “this is a prophecy” or “the Messiah will be named Jesus” or “the Savior of the world will come at this point in time” or “The Messiah will be driving a grey two-door convertible donkey with 4 on the floor, a reclining saddle and smoking Camels” 😉 or something similar? Am I correctly understanding what you are saying? (except for possibly the donkey – it may not have come in the two-door model at that time..)

    Like

  153. Stephen says:

    Scott,
    Yes that is a close summary.
    I’m a literal kind of a guy. It says it or it does not. And if it does not, then each person has the free will to choose what it means to them and no one should ever criticize or challenge their beliefs and no one should ever push their beliefs on another person.
    I believe in the OT much more than the NT simply due to the singular entity (Hebrews/Jews) that wrote it over thousands of years; vs, the NT which has been written by hundreds of persons that are not named or proofed up to be the authors of the documents according to the RCC.
    In fact I’d say that 100% of the actual documents, the physical documents, for the NT are rewrites, several times over, of the original text, if one actually existed.

    In a period of 250 to 325 years so many generations had to tell the story due to the lack of writing/reading skills of the populous that the handed down stories took on no doubt the tellers version vs what he may have been told by his father and he from his father and he from his father and so on back 325 years or so.

    This is the main problem with having such an important work such as the NT written by persons that lived hundreds of years after all individuals actually involved in the christian story of Jesus were long since dead and all we have are a group of pagans and christians, trying honestly no doubt, to write a legit story line from non-legit sources IMHO.

    The horse had no name. But he loved to go out in the rain. Or was the name Wild Fire?

    Cya

    Like

  154. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    LOL!! In the desert I remembered my name … and I was calling Wild Fire… 🙂

    Thanks for your answers. I can appreciate you being a literal kind of guy. 🙂 It takes all sorts to make up this world. 🙂

    I agree that everyone has the free will (and should be given the opportunity) to believe what they believe. However, I will have to disagree with part of this statement:

    “no one should ever criticize or challenge their beliefs and no one should ever push their beliefs on another person.”

    The part I agree with is that no one should forcibly push their beliefs onto another person. That is what dictators and tyrants do. When they cannot win you over by reason and persuasion, they use force. I am completely against that.

    But the part I disagree with is “no one should ever criticize or challenge their beliefs”. I think that is too broadly stated because, then how do we debate? How do we learn? How do we challenge each other to be better people, or find what is truth, etc.? I do not think we should be free from criticism or challenge, but it would be nice if the criticism or challenge wasn’t derogatory and demeaning in nature.Some people cannot criticize or challenge without condemning and that is unfortunate. There are typical psychological reasons people do this (like they are really uncomfortable with their own position), but we won’t get into all that. We just need to be the bigger people and not take personally those whose criticisms and challenges seem to attack us directly, and try to answer harshness with gentleness. Remember Proverbs 15:1 – a gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger. (I was “forced” (LOL!) as a child to memorize that scripture and it has helped me all my life! 🙂 )

    For instance, you and I disagree on some things. I challenge your beliefs (I try to do it gently and with respect) and you respond with your reasons. I think that is a valid exercise in any discussion. And you are free to challenge my beliefs and I will give my reasons. As iron sharpens iron, we learn from each other. If we are not free to critique or challenge, it is difficult to grow from each others’ experiences, beliefs and thoughts.

    For instance, to use an example that keeps coming up: you and I do not view the NT scriptures the same way. I am ok with that. You have laid out your reasons and I have given you some of mine. We discovered there is a point where we must agree to disagree instead of continuing to bash in each others’ heads with “our side of the argument”. In my view, that point was the authentication of the NT scriptures, the fragments (and sometimes complete scrolls) found that some have dated to have been written between 125 and 250AD. You disagree with the validity of this study clearly stating your reasons. I believe in the work that was done. At this point in time, we are both unmovable in our positions and that is ok. We discovered where the difference is, and I can live with the fact that you believe one way and I believe another. But now we know what the difference is and I respect you for explaining your thoughts. 🙂

    For the next “For Instance” 🙂 … you also stated:

    “This is the main problem with having such an important work such as the NT written by persons that lived hundreds of years after all individuals actually involved in the christian story of Jesus were long since dead…”

    I would probably agree with your position if I believed the underlying premise that you are postulating: that premise being that the NT scriptures were not written during the lives and times of the people contemporary with Jesus and the apostles. But that is the sticking point. When were those documents actually written for the first time? (And were they faithfully copied through the years?)

    So, my question to you is: IF (and that is a BIIIIIIIG “IF”) it was somehow reasonably proven to you that the documents that make up the NT scriptures WERE INDEED (or at least “probably”) written back in the days of the people contemporary with Jesus and the apostles, would you possibly soften your stance on your view of the NT scriptures? (No, I’m not asking you to believe in Jesus, etc., just potentially soften your stance on the NT being created in 325AD?) 🙂

    I know, I know… I put a HUUUUUGE “IF” in there… But I have stated that I would agree with you “IF” I could believe your premise. Could you “potentially” agree with me if you could believe MY premise? 🙂

    On a lighter note: Did you catch anything interesting? : ) And are you a sports fan? Or an American football fan? Just curious if you have any interest in the upcoming playoff games this weekend. 🙂

    Go Broncos! 🙂

    Like

  155. Stephen says:

    Simply put humans as a species do not for the most part with regards to politics and religion ‘challenge and critique’ other peoples views with kindness. These are fuses in today’s cultures as we see daily and have been for thousands of years. These two subjects have been the reason for the vast majority of conflict on this planet, IMHO. If it were possible across the board with a broad brush we would have a much nicer kinder more loving planet of people. But it does not happen as a norm. Again IMHO.

    I’m certain that if the documents that you have noted being written @ 125-250 and which I note were rewritten at the time of the first council, 325 AD, were in fact found to have been written 30AD -50AD then there would be two things happen.
    First they would after being vetted they would be positioned in a much more responsible and accountable and believe able position than they are currently held by many people, my self included.
    Secondly, if they were found to be early AD writings then we would find that the current NT is indeed incorrect after all and these would be the proof for that statement. Simply because we have used documents to ‘recreate documents’ during this first council and therefore the original statements and stories would still have been changed by the many copying and transcribing that has happened over the past thousands of years. Remember, the first stories were told, not written. The people did not read or write much if any for the most part, so telling a story was a mainstay of passing info for thousands upon thousands of years. Who said what, who added what, who changed what, who forgot what, ad so on is just unknown.

    So it’s a two sided sword.

    Yes they would be more approachable as real, yet we would all find out how much difference there would be between the early 30-50 AD documents and the current NT.

    Cya

    Like

  156. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    Well, I think we are resetting the bar on cordial discuss between disagreeing parties. 🙂 I cannot control the way others behave and respond, but I can control my own behavior and responses. And I choose a cordial discussion. 🙂 (If you choose otherwise, then we may have to resort to water balloons at 50 paces… 😉 )

    I am glad you stated this:

    “First they would after being vetted they would be positioned in a much more responsible and accountable and believe able position than they are currently held by many people, my self included.”

    I agree. Seems to me that would be the logical progression. (So – look out! Some good evidence that you could believe in might come along someday and start to reshape how you view the NT… LOL! 🙂 )

    And now – alas – I must take issue with two things you have said. (But hopefully politely and respectfully…. 😉 )

    Your statement:

    “…if they were found to be early AD writings then we would find that the current NT is indeed incorrect after all and these would be the proof for that statement.”

    I must disagree with your conclusion that “we would find that the current NT is indeed incorrect after all…” One cannot make a conclusion like that from the hypothesis since we cannot know for certain what they would contain IF they existed.

    However, you ended with:

    “Yes they would be more approachable as real, yet we would all find out how much difference there would be between the early 30-50 AD documents and the current NT.”

    That I can basically agree with that. We would be able to find out… IF… they are different, and if so, HOW MUCH different they are. It is not a foregone conclusion they WOULD be different IF they existed. 🙂

    (I hope that was cordial enough… 🙂 )

    Now my next disagreement – more in degree than in total. You stated:

    “Remember, the first stories were told, not written”

    Well… yes… if you are talking about several thousand years ago. (Or were you talking about your childhood?? hehe 😉 ) But we are talking only of 2,000 years ago. Granted, people didn’t write as much then as they do now (resources and technology were not as far advanced or available as we have now obviously), but there is plenty of evidence that shows people were writing things down during this time frame and even a couple thousand years prior. The following website lists a lot of ancient documents and texts that predate Jesus, some as early as 3,000 BC.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

    (Unless you don’t believe in the dating of these documents either? 🙂 ) There is a lot of evidence that things were being written down 2,000 years ago as well as previously – not to mention heaps of evidence of the OT writings predating Jesus. So painting the picture that “the first stories were told, not written” does paint an accurate picture of the time and period we are talking about and so it is misleading. Again, you are welcome to believe that, but it flies in the face of a bunch of evidence we have to the contrary.

    If you have evidence that rebuffs my evidence, I am happy to take a look at it as I am always scientifically curious. 🙂 (Buff the evidence until you can see your face reflected in it… )

    And now I must go find another mode of transportation, because after 9 days I let the horse run free… 😉

    Like

  157. Stephen says:

    Good enough.

    The point that I was trying to make and failed was the ‘average’ person, the jon doe and jan doe, the regular joes and joettes, did not for the most part write and or read anything at all. They may have recognized city names or street signs or ???.

    This is really not a question or a suggestion of mine, this is a documented reality of the people of the BC ear and for quite some time the people in the AD era.

    Even in our own Wild West, it was rare for a person to speak and write the english language as far along as the early/mid 1800’s. Some did? Yes but the common folk did not as much. Not really a debatable topic.

    It’s no doubt some people wrote and read the language of the times in 0 to 100 AD but it would be proven by those language experts that teach these things that few, very few people wrote or read back then. It was a time of verbal agreements and a handshake if memory serves me right.

    But that’s another issue.
    Cya

    Like

  158. Stephen says:

    In a follow up to whether or not ‘people’ wrote and or read, it is understood that the more learned persons, the priests, hierarchy and such did read. They actually in times past prevented people from having text, learning to read, and or to write as a means to keep knowledge from people.

    Religiously it’s the same. Priests and such ‘tell’ us what God said where in fact any person with a mind and the ability to read can do so and come to a conclusion as valid as any theologian with regards to their own life and how they believe and think.

    So yes some, yet very few, people did in fact write and read.

    The Sumerian language is documented many many many thousands of years before jesus was to have been here. Sumerian text’s and tablets certainly exist but the majority of the people were quite illiterate. Same with the Hebrews and early jews. These things are all old school documented topics in the past.

    One can’t take the fact that a small percentage of people during a time frame could read and write and make the jump that ‘most could’. It’s just not factual.

    Literature is a powerful tool. Pen is mightier than the sword so to speak and to have a knowledgeable populous would be a dangerous thing for most societies in all of the BC ear and for the majority of the AC ear up until @ mid 1800’s.

    People were so illiterate that their signature was most times called a ‘mark’. And it was the mark of the ‘X’ that was accepted, just to show you how illiterate the middle ages were. This was used in the shipping industry as a persons signature because most sailors were illiterate. Check it out.

    CYa

    Like

  159. Stephen says:

    Your list proves my point. IMHO.
    Sorry to come back over and over about topics.

    The first one in the list, I believe, the Papyrus of Ani.
    Go look at the actual papyrus. I just did so as to be certain my cabernet had not gotten a foot up on me.

    If this is your explanation of reading and writing then cave dwellers and their paintings were the early Merriam Websters and I now understand what you mean by read and write.

    Quite different from what I consider reading and writing.

    I consider writing the sole use of characters to convey a message, not pictures and symbols.

    So this may be the real rub in this topic. Our difference in what we call reading an writing.

    CYa

    Like

  160. Scott says:

    You may be correct… we may be talking about semantics here because I don’t see anything in your last 3 posts that I can really disagree with. So there! 🙂

    I have never argued that all, most, or even a majority of people could read and write during these time frames, even up to a couple hundred years ago. I was just countering what I considered overreaching statements from you. (I really have a thing for accuracy, which really rubs some people the wrong way… I apologize if I do that to you… it is just my scientific nature and desire for accurate truth that drives me nuts!! 🙂 )

    Let me turn the topic slightly. You appear to be a believer in the OT. (Correct me if I am wrong.) It is obviously older than the NT. How did it survive in your most humble of opinions? Why do you appear to put faith and stock in it?

    Like

  161. Stephen says:

    This is asked much of me.
    First, only the most learned, the most holy, those closest to God wrote and kept these writings. They were treasures, defended, protected. They were the only connection between themselves and God himself. Everyone was of the same lineage. There were not Islamic, Christians, Gentiles, and such. They were all of one lineage. We have dates for all other belief systems start points. There was no competition between tribes for God’s attention. He loved them all equally.

    They were not like today’s bibles where anyone can publish one and sell it on a street corner. These were God’s words. Much different than a man written text. Not to be disrespectful here, just not the same.

    My answer is based on what I believe to be Gods Chosen People, meaning God was specifically interested in these people surviving much sorrow, their needing a strong faith, almost clannish and unyielding to fear at times (Mount Masada as an example), and their need to forward Gods words to their people long after they were gone from this earth. Again they are a clannish people but kind, smart, and most of all Chosen by God. They were direct descendants of Adam and Eve and their three sons Cain/Able/Seth and I believe they still had a knowledge of this connection to them and God. This last sentence is merely my opinion.

    Since in today’s society there is much spoken in terms of lies, deceit, hatred, etc that is blanketed in a false veil of ‘truth’, and yes we as americans fall to that just as bad as any other culture has in the past, we have to watch what is told us because people, man, has ulterior motives at all angles in life. Most of which is Greed/Envy/etc. Religion has been used by as many people as the sword has been to control people and unfortunately it has been the islamic and christian faiths that have done this more so than any other faiths in history have.

    It is my belief that back in the times of the Sumerian, Hebrew, early Aramaic and Jewish people (starting some ???? 6 to 8000 years ago) there was not the materialistic problems around as we have now. People were not lazy or not as much because you either worked to gain a meal or you went hungry. You hauled water so that your family could drink. You protected your family/tribe from others with your life because they were your life. Picture it like a lot of small groups (maybe 50 or less members) living as a commune. You either help or you are outcast and then you die from being an outcast without security safety or substance.

    There is no 7/11 to rob. No banks to hold up. You are a part and parcel of your tribe. You were one with the tribe and one with God. It was important for them to pass on their knowledge of God and their conversations with God to their heirs so their lineage would live on. There is no need in one person in a tribe to attempt to lie to another because they all knew the same thing. So it is in my view normal for them to memorialize their experiences, which history indicates they did just that, for future people. In addition it seems their ‘Word’ is so accepted worldwide that every man made religion on earth has all or part of it’s stories in their bible or church texts or whatever one may call it. That is impressive.

    This is even today how much of the jewish life remains. They are clannish yet they take care of their own and will cast one out if they just won’t work within the system. They do this for the betterment of the whole.

    With out the benefit of materialism to be used as a bribe or as a trophy if one lied to another as is is today’s cultures, there would be no reason for them to be chosen by God to be his Chosen People and then lie to gain more. What more could a civilization from back then desire? There would have been nothing greater than Gods love IMHO.

    And one must remember, they actually walked and talked with God, his messengers and conversed at many times regarding Gods wishes and in answering the wants and needs of his Chosen People. The OT is filled with Gods words. Not a man saying God said this or that, but Gods words speaking to these people. Surely with it being God himself, they would make a note of it? Just like the commandments.

    Just a penny and a half’s worth of what I think may be an answer.

    Cya

    Like

  162. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    You have penned a wonderful story. I did ask for your opinion, so I am getting what I asked for. So now it is my turn.

    The New Testament books are generally considered to have been written by about 8 authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude. Some people think there might have been one or two more authors, but nearly all agree about these 8.

    Some of these men knew Jesus personally as they had lived with him for up to 3 years. Others were contemporaries of Jesus. They learned about God through listening to Jesus’ teachings. They saw Jesus killed by crucifixion. And then, to their astonishment, they saw Jesus alive again. They were so excited by what they had witnessed that they wanted to tell their stories, to let the world know what they had seen and heard, so they wrote them down.

    These writings were copied and recopied through the years by many people who were excited about the writings and wanted to preserve them and share them with others. In fact, they were copied and distributed so many times that there are more manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts preserved of these documents than any other ancient work, including the OT.

    Like

  163. Stephen says:

    I understand your comment well. Have heard it many times.

    Yet, the catholic church, the one single largest depository of ancient documents and the largest christian group in the world differs with you.

    They note that it is indeed not the actual writings of the named apostles and that they were in deed written and re-written by priests over the centuries up to and including the first council.
    They none the less consider the writings influenced by God and therefore cannon law of the church.

    I just can’t turn a deaf ear on a group that is so deeply dug in with jesus yet will admirably admit that the NT texts were indeed written by other than those named.

    Never will see the answer till we meet the Big Guy when we pass, but it will be an adventure to say the least!

    CYa

    Like

  164. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    I am ok with the catholic church differing with me. (After all, they do have a track record of getting some things wrong… 🙂 ) We do not see eye-to-eye on many issues. If they are the ones saying what you have been quoting in this blog, then they differ with more than just me… they differ with quite a few people in the scientific community. And it sounds like my argument should most likely be with them, not really you. 🙂 And I am ok with that. 🙂 (That leaves you and me to go fishing… LOL! 🙂 )

    I know what I believe and I know why I believe it. But I am always willing to discuss practically anything. If someone comes in with new evidence that can be backed up by sound argument, or scientific discovery, I am always open to review it. It does not threaten me and it is kind of fun to talk about various thoughts and angles. I’ve learned many things that way and have had to reexamine and rethink some of my own beliefs over time. When we think we know it all and have all the answers, that, to me, is when we are most vulnerable to getting things wrong and being blind to the truth – IMHO.

    I am glad they consider the writings “influenced by God” and “canon law” … LOL! 🙂 I guess they and I agree there… 🙂 (I know that is not your view … and that is ok with me. 🙂 ) But, like you, I do not like many of the things they have done throughout the centuries: abuse of power, withholding information, teaching false doctrines, fleecing the people, etc. Have there been good things? Absolutely. But there have also been bad things. But that is the same story in practically every area of life where humans are concerned – it is not new – so I kind of expect it. I am not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but i will call a spade a spade when I see a spade.

    I want to be there when you ask your questions to the Big Guy. I have a few of my own… 🙂

    Like

  165. KellyJo says:

    I serve Christ.
    Aside from salvation, Jesus had another purpose, to bring us the most precious Holy Spirit of God.
    I was raised in the church, have visited and been involved with a number of different denominations. The unbelievers are right, the Christian church is divided over two critical things…salvation, saved by faith or works or Grace AND the Holy Spirit, I’ve spoken with pastors of some denominations who sincerely believe the Holy Spirit came and left on the day of Pentecost.. even those who accept the Holy Spirit disagree on His GIFTS
    Again…I serve Jesus Christ..
    The Church of old didn’t recognize Him and was threatened by His teachings, so they crucified Him.
    300 years later they held a council and voted on which texts were to go into the Judea Christianaboute. Shortly after, the Spanish Inquisition began.
    My argument is this…Christ came to fulfill the law ((denominations argue this too)) Galatians chp 5
    He came to abolish the law and its curse.
    Not have a religion created after Him.
    If the bible truly were the LIVING word of God….none filled with the Holy Spirit would argue over its contents….
    When we are in the Spirit of Worship the Unity in Spirit is easy…there’s nothing to argue about….when we are testifying about God in our lives… There’s nothing to argue about…unity in Spirit is easy
    The fighting and arguing starts when we open the bible and begin to interpret..
    Every pastor I’ve listened to answers one question the same…when asked…how do I get to know God….
    They ALL agree….read the bible

    Personally, I walk and talk with Him
    I don’t believe there’s any other way
    You can’t learn the voice of God by reading
    Only by spending time with Him and listening

    The church is divided over critical issues
    Ignoring that doesn’t help the unbeliever, neither does arguing the point, that just shows the unbeliever how ignorant we are while divided

    Like

  166. Doc says:

    Well I’m kinda lost in several areas here.
    First, ‘the church of old’ what is that?
    The only (BC era) known faith based system other than pagans was the hebrew/jewish one.
    325 years later, the true basis for christianity was born via the NT.
    Previous to this there was belief in Jesus but no organized church of any type.
    Just loose groups adhering to the teaching of Jesus and even these disagreed with each other as did Peter and Paul. They actually had a physical fist fight over Jesus’ teachings. One agreed with Jesus and one did not. I believe Paul was the dissenter.
    The term Holy Spirit did not exist in the OT and was not used until the NT was established so this claim is only supported by other words ‘translated’ into spirit. Yet, nowhere in the ancient texts is ‘Holy Spirit’ found.
    I’d like to see the ‘true old, ancient, text with ‘holy spirit’ it in’ really; direct me to that scripture (remember I’m talking about the OT since the NT was not established/written in whole/completed until @ 325 AD)

    I’m just learning, not causing any type of an uproar. Just learning.

    Cya

    Like

  167. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, you have mentioned again some things I have asked you about before. Perhaps you could tell us what you think about these two questions please ….

    1. The gospels were written between 50 and 100 CE, and circulated in the church for years (there are quotes by other writers to show this). Their compilation into the NT was ratified in the 4th century. So we have this sequence:

    Events: c 30 CE
    Writing: 50-100 CE
    Compilation into scriptures: 325 CE

    Why is their compilation date more important to you than the dates they were written?

    2. You keep mentioning the Old Testament. When do you think those books were written down, and when do you think they were compiled into the Jewish Tanakh? Could you share your understanding of the dates of events, writing and compilation of the books Genesis, Joshua, Isaiah, Hosea please?

    Thanks.

    Like

  168. Doc says:

    Since you and the RCC are in dispute and they were the church of europe when constantine assembled the NT, there is little that I can tell you.

    The RCC claims in writing that the gospels were not written by the apostles as people assume but are indeed written by priests at the time of the first council.

    They were they re-writing from older works, certainly they were, but the actual text you speak about is not in existence. There are no works written by any of the 4 persons claimed to have written them in existence.

    It’s kinda hard to converse if you don’t understand that the RCC is the bearer of more documents for christianity than any other entity. If they, after basing their beliefs on, can admit that they, the NT Gospels as we know them today, were written by priests and not by the 4 amigos, why can’t christians?
    I’m just saying?

    The biggest reason I bring this up over and over is because too many christians spout that the NT is Gods words. Well it’s not Gods words it’s mans words. Maybe influenced by belief systems including God but man wrote these and never spoke with God, ever, in the creation of the NT. The NT text were as the RCC states created at the first council. They were all rewritten, not just one of them, but all documents in the NT are documents that were rewritten at that council so that all could agree on them.That is the reason the council was arranged in the first place, to bring together all belief systems and create a single source of documents and or information that all could agree on and move forward with as a community/religion.

    This is just part of the history of christianity and the RCC.

    That is something that the average christian does not understand and yet tells people that they are Gods words. They are not Gods words.

    The OT, we need to read the books again, and one will see that God walked with many people in the OT. Talked to them first hand, sent his messengers to help and protect them, gave them prophesy’s. Nothing like this ever happened in the times the NT was created.

    God spoke to man for the OT to be created, ten commandments and all, written, documented, etc. The jews toted around a tent/altar, the documents, tins, etc where ever they roamed to as nomads for hundreds of years. I’m certain you know this though and always gives me pause when you question it.

    Why is that? This is just historical information and nothing of mine or my doing.

    I really like communicating with you. You must be a nice person.

    Cya

    Like

  169. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen,

    Two quick responses thanks.

    1. You keep talking about what the RCC says, but you never give a reference. Can you share with us where it says this please?

    2. Are you able, please, to answer my question about the dates of events, writing and compilation of some OT books please?

    Thanks.

    Like

  170. Scott says:

    Hey Doc Stephen,

    I know that UnkleE has asked a couple of questions. But i just had a thought after our last lengthy conversation…

    It seems to me that throughout our previous conversation, you seem to be quoting what the RCC says as if it is the truth, yet you accuse them of intentionally lying and misleading millions of people. Why would you give the RCC such credibility for stating the truth on one hand, yet disdain them for their lying and misleading on the other? This doesn’t jive with me…

    That’s all I have for now. 🙂 I hope you’ve caught your weight in fish… 🙂

    Like

  171. Doc says:

    As noted before the Catholic Encyclopedia and letters from past and present popes gives these details. I’ll look them up for you and send a link.
    You apparently don’t use the CE or follow the popes many statements to support christianity?

    The OT books were written as time went on but like the christian bible were assembled if memory serves me right @ 600 BC but I’ll have to dig and get you dates.

    In addition and why this is such a problem for anyone is dating documents is nearly impossible. Carbon dating does not work on most writing medium.

    Language experts use known text of the past and have cataloged when certain letters, phrases, etc have come into existence and can only put a general time frame up for most documents day/date/time of creation. Sometimes ink can be a helpful substance as well.

    We’ll dig into it and send you some links.

    Like

  172. Doc says:

    You posted:
    **********************
    It seems to me that throughout our previous conversation, you seem to be quoting what the RCC says as if it is the truth, yet you accuse them of intentionally lying and misleading millions of people. Why would you give the RCC such credibility for stating the truth on one hand, yet disdain them for their lying and misleading on the other? This doesn’t jive with me…
    **********************

    That’s a nice effort but you have my reasons for using the RCC incorrect.

    The RCC is the christian church in terms of first/foremost/largest/most documents/historically going back the furthest and once in power still rules todays christian beliefs more than any other christian denomination.

    All other denominations have faded away or became much smaller than they were such as the church of england, and all follow the lead of the pope and always have. I don’t know why they do, but they do. Not 100% but 99% follow the papal beliefs and keep up with his trends. Everyone needs someone to follow in religion because none of it is anything other than man made.

    They are the krugerrand for christians even if they are not for you, they are for the world. I don’t know why because I think they are just another man made religion that simply caught on better than others.

    When the RCC, which produced and had the oldest bibles and documents starting long before the Douey Rhems, they used textual criticism to validate what an old document said and what they thought it meant, and subsequently wrote down what they thought it meant.
    This is the one nail in the tire that christianity cannot excape. It proves that the apostles did not write the gospels but mere humans, working for the chrisitan church of england and later the RCC, wrote the entire group of texts called the NT. By writing it I mean they read the old and wrote what they believed it meant, not said, but what it meant to them. So one persons understandings is what all christians believe. Not Gods words. I don’t understand why or how they could do this?
    The current, today bible NT was written by peopel/men/priests. Anyone that believes that todays text is exact to the very first text written has failed divinity school. And I do not say that in any mean spirited manner. Why, because I keep telling people, these are not my ideas. These are the positions of todays religious scholars, scientists, archeologists, etc that have put generations into studying christianity and all other religions. It’s just how it is.

    Can you tell me why anyone would criticize the words of god? Textual criticism?
    Why could they not write it down verbatim like the OT is and if you have never seen an true OT in verbatim translation then you need to. It does not read like we read today. It’s more like saying something is english to a mexican and having that mexican say it to another mexican and having what he said written down verbatium in english and comparing the original english sentence. They are nothing alike in many cases and these are languages we know well.

    English:
    See the white dog at the lottery kiosk? He thinks he is going to buy the winning ticket for todays Power Ball.
    Mexican:
    Vea el perro blanco en el quiosco de lotería? Él piensa que va a comprar el boleto ganador de Power Ball de hoy.

    Get someone to translate the mexican language into engilsh ‘exactly as it is’. Don’t move any words around, don’t add or subtract anything. You’ll get a good idea as to how hard it was and you’ll see why they ended up going to textual criticism.

    CYa
    fish were great!

    Like

  173. Scott says:

    Doc Stephen,

    Thanks for the reply, but I think I may still not understand your use of the RCC when you seem to be also lampooning them all the same.

    You stated

    “They are the krugerrand for christians even if they are not for you, they are for the world.”

    You are correct in that they are not the “krugerrand” for me. So that is the basis on which I am dealing… Not For Me. I deal scientifically. Show me the evidence. I do not need the “Krugerrand” of most of the world. I need truthful evidence no matter where it comes from. If the RCC has truthful evidence, I will gladly look at it. If it is proved to be lies, I will throw it out, regardless of their “krugerrand” standing. If I find truthful evidence other places, I will use it… Etc.

    Can we settle this one thing please? You keep bringing up carbon dating regarding writing material. For instance, you just recently said:

    “In addition and why this is such a problem for anyone is dating documents is nearly impossible. Carbon dating does not work on most writing medium.”

    This reminds me of some of my own family dynamics: “Saying something many times doesn’t make it any more true.” Or maybe your are relying upon “Saying something often enough people will start to believe you”?

    Your statements about this are completely contrary to articles like these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
    http://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/forensic-files-carbon-dating-the-paper-and-the-signature-to-prove-forgery/

    I have my own bones to pick with the carbon dating methodology, but without evidence, they are just pet peeves right now. And your position may very well be your own “belief” – which you are certainly entitled to. But we are not entitled to push our beliefs onto others as if they are facts when they are unsubstantiated. And as of yet, I cannot find any support for your belief about carbon dating writing material being ‘nearly impossible’.

    If you have some evidence to share about this, please do. If not, would it be too much to ask that we stop talking about carbon dating not working? Because, in light of seemingly good evidence that I have presented, you have not changed your belief. And I have not seen you present evidence to back up your statements (have I missed it?), and therefore, my beliefs are not changed. We are at a standstill. So, continuing to beat this dead horse does no good. (Unless, like I stated earlier, you are attempting to sway future readers of this blog to your conviction – without actual evidence – just by saying it often.)

    Without evidence to the contrary, we are left with basically two choices:
    1 – believe what these articles state, or
    2 – believe what you are saying just because you are saying it.
    My money is on #1.

    Like

  174. Scott says:

    Doc Stephen,

    On to the “translation” / “textual criticism” thing… I’m not sure I know what you are trying to say. Very, very, very few languages can be translated from one to the other, word for word, and retain the same meaning (I personally know of none). Contextual translating is far more accurate when trying to pull a concept from one language into another. Therefore, word for word translations would be more error prone for communicating the actual message. So what are you trying to say? (Or are you just not happy with the use of the word “criticism”?)

    Also, not to be argumentative – but I do not believe this statement of yours:

    “All other denominations have faded away or became much smaller than they were such as the church of england, and all follow the lead of the pope and always have. I don’t know why they do, but they do. Not 100% but 99% follow the papal beliefs and keep up with his trends.”

    I don’t know what crowd you run with, but this is not even recognizable in my world. There might be elements of truth in here, but the way you state it seems to be either over-the-top or just flat out wrong. Do you have any research evidence supporting your statement? (Remember… it’s just me… the annoying “Show me your evidence” person… 🙂 )

    My personal anecdotal evidence is this: I have been intricately involved with five churches in my short lifetime, all of them with tentacled relationships with other “sister-type” churches. NONE of them (not even ONE) has paid ANY attention to papal beliefs or trends. They basically ignore anything coming out of the catholic church (except for periodic criticism or noting something where we might agree). If we have any common ground, it is generally coincidental or because there is good basis for it. One might try to argue that we have singing and they have singing – ergo, we must be following their lead. One could come up with all sorts of silly similarity comparisons like that, that could lead them to the wrong conclusion. For instance, cars, trucks, trains, plains, wagons, bicycles, circuses, machinery… all have wheels. This would not prove relationship – just that a wheel is a highly useful tool for doing a variety of work. One might also argue that since the RCC came first, we are all descendants and products of it. That is tantamount to saying that a Lamborghini is descendant from the Model T. While there is a bit of truth there… what is the point? A Lamborghini shares very little in common with the Model T – and what it does, it does for good reason, not because of the Model T (i.e., engines and wheels are a good things to have on a vehicle).

    So… sorry to be challenging another statement… but I need more proof than just your word. 🙂

    (Although, I WOULD take your word for it that the fish you caught was THIIIIIIIIS big! LOL! 🙂 )

    Like

  175. Doc says:

    Exactly. Word for word translations don’t exist. Yet I am told that the NT is Gods words, and it is not in actuality. It’s the words of man.

    Your error, with respect, is that with textual criticism a persons own personal beliefs or understandings come into play. Here is a perfect example and it’s just an example and nothing else so don’t come back with it tethered to some ‘yeah but’ or ‘wait a minute’. It’s just an example but a very important one.

    Book of Hosea: God says (I paraphrase), “Besides me there is no other savior.” Unless someone interjects their own personal beliefs into this statement, to believe there is any savior other than God would be adverse to this statement by God. It would go against Gods words which I’m not willing to do.
    Yet, christians say without any supporting proof outside their own internal church cannons that Jesus is their savior and even though Jesus never said he was the savior they use textual criticism and creation of new documents or the re-writing of old ones to fit the belief system they have. Same with Islam.
    I say creation of new documents and rewriting of old ones based on your statements of textual criticism, not mine. We both have come to a fork in a road where we both know the old texts, any old text that was written thousands of years ago are not in the NT. The NT is comprised of documents read-rewritten-written at the first council which was as all 21 have been, a RCC council. In fact the RCC really had it’s beginning at the same time as the first council if one were to study the RCC and its history vs what it teaches.
    It claims that Peter was the first Pope. Popes can’t be married, yet Peter was. This eliminates Peter as a Pope. Lots of things are hidden in history and not many people have the access to these hidden bits of info. The Jewish faith has access to it all. They were here first and watched the others come into play and did a bang up job of documentation.
    Half of all christians are RCC. I’m not saying that other denominations are non-existent. I’m saying for the RCC to come into existence in or @ 325 AD and now some 1700 years later to be the biggest christian denomination (1.3 billion) makes them the big dog on the porch in terms of christians. That’s all. I’m not knocking any man made religion. The RCC is as wrong as the Church in the Meadow or the Cowboy Church in the Prairie or whatever denomination there is. They all feed at the same trough with the same beliefs ‘for the most part’. Yes there are many differences but mostly minor.

    I entered this blog with a comment that there were over 40,000 different denominations of christianity and here is where it’s gotten me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just joking. I don’t mind the challenges.

    Until someone can explain away the statement by God and him being the only savior, then there is no room for a second savior in my heart and soul and mind. God is my dad, creator, bud, friend, god, and savior. I gotta stick with God. I just can’t turn my back on him and to accept any other savior other than him would in my mind be doing just that.

    Have you ever seen this:

    I’d like your feedback please.

    Yeah the fish were great, maybe 2 pounds each. Just love them fish! Jesus and I would have gotten along well with a fish dinner and some wine! You’re invited.

    Like

  176. Doc says:

    Just as a side bar, the 5 churches you have been associated with, can you post the total membership of each? or even just a close estimate?
    When I’m talking about a 1.3 billion denomination it would be insignificant to simply be a 25 to 100 million member denom. Just too small to make any waves.
    My opinion of course and nothing else.

    Like

  177. Scott says:

    Doc Stephen,

    I look forward to breaking bread, fish and wine with you and Jesus. (Well, not necessarily “breaking” wine… but partaking anyway… LOL! 🙂 )

    And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

    I have 2 questions for you:

    1. Which version of the OT do you read?

    2. In your view, what is God capable of? Or, if it is easier to answer, what is God incapable of?

    Regarding my anecdotal observation, I readily admit it is anecdotal. However, to humor you 🙂 : the churches I have been associated with would total less than 1,000 total people. We do not belong to any denomination (we call ourselves “non-denominational” because we do not organize ourselves under anyone else’s umbrella – although, Wiki would list us under “Protestant”.) So, yes, compared to 1.3 billion, we are exceedingly and infinitesimally small. But unlike many people, I place very little credence or credibility in numbers. Remember when Elijah stood up alone against 450 prophets of Baal as well as Ahab and Jezebel? It would have been very popular (and prudent) for him to just blend in and be quiet. But he didn’t. He stood up for the truth against very large odds (and against the threat of imminent death). So, if I must stand alone against 1.3 billion people whom I believe have it wrong, I will still stand – I am not cowed (nor impressed) by numbers. But I do not stand obstinately or ignorantly. If I believe I have the truth on my side, then I stand on the truth, but hopefully still in humility and love. But it must be truth. I do not stand so solidly on opinion… opinions are like rear ends… everyone’s got one… and they stink… 🙂

    I found this statement of yours rather interesting:

    “Until someone can explain away the statement by God and him being the only savior, then there is no room for a second savior in my heart and soul and mind.”

    I find it interesting because that is not MY argument with you. You do realize that I am not and have not EVER argued with you about having “a second savior”, or accepting Jesus as savior, etc., right? When you say things like this – things that you and I have NOT discussed – at least not from my end, it sounds like you are having an argument with yourself… or you’re trying to create an argument with me that doesn’t exist. Remember, I am the one who is perfectly fine with you having your own beliefs … just not your own “facts” (statements stated as if they are factual when they are unsubstantiated…) 🙂 I am just challenging the things you say that appear to me to be stated either too harshly, too broadly, or without evidence – so that we can have an interesting, hopefully intellectual conversation, and ideally we can both learn something. 🙂 And I do greatly appreciate the friendliness of our chats!! To me, it makes it much more pleasant than trying to bash each other’s brains in verbally. 🙂

    Yes, I have seen something like that (“Mythra”)… maybe not that exact one though. But, yes, I have been exposed to that. My opinion (remember, it is only opinion so it is going to stink… LOL! 🙂 ) : I do not find much credibility in it.

    That’s all for now. Busy weekend. Gotta dismantle and remove the fireplace stove insert to see what’s wrong with the chimney… sigh… the thing is heavier than a sumo wrestler on a 3 month ice cream and Twinkies binge…

    Like

  178. Scott says:

    One more thing as a followup to the video you posted.

    These types of things have little to no credibility with me for these types of reasons. The first “god” it talks about is “Horus” of Egypt. However, NONE of the things mentioned in the video are even casually mentioned in these seemingly more credible websites about Horus:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
    http://www.landofpyramids.org/horus.htm
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Horus.aspx

    I didn’t read any further. The only piece of information that could possibly be construed to be almost accurate was that Horus was born of Isis (but read how she did it… a virgin she ain’t!).

    My point is – anyone can make and post ANYTHING on the net. You can find support for virtually any stupid position you can possibly dream up. I found someone who seems to seriously think the earth is flat! And that it is a huge cover-up calling it a sphere. Out of curiosity, I read several of his “papers” on the subject (thinking it had to be a spoof). His “logic” is seriously twisted and demented. I found no truth to anything he said (not that I expected to…).

    So I often find the old adage to be true: Just because someone says something, does not make it true. Just because someone posts a video that says there are all these old gods whose stories are similar or the same as Jesus’, doesn’t make it true. That is one reason I am adamant about the truth, finding the real source of information, not just someone lying to try to and reinvent history for their own interests or perversions.

    Just on how wrong they got Horus’ account in this video (utterly and completely), I would not believe a thing that video says about any other “god”. I would place that video in the trash heap of useless propaganda pieces. Anyone who takes anything it says seriously is discredited… IMHO. You can wade through a heap load of garbage and refuse trying to find a small piece of something edible, or you can just go to where they serve good food. I’ll take a restaurant, thank you.

    Like

  179. Scott says:

    One more thing as a followup to the video you posted.

    These types of things have little to no credibility with me for these types of reasons. The first “god” it talks about is “Horus” of Egypt. However, NONE of the things mentioned in the video are even casually mentioned in these seemingly more credible websites about Horus:

    en . wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
    www . landofpyramids.org/horus.htm
    www . encyclopedia.com/topic/Horus.aspx

    (sorry for the disabled links… I think my posts get ash-canned when I post multiple active links… so you have edit them slightly to make them work…)

    I didn’t read any further. The only piece of information that could possibly be construed to be almost accurate was that Horus was born of Isis (but read how she did it… a virgin she ain’t!).

    My point is – anyone can make and post ANYTHING on the net. You can find support for virtually any stupid position you can possibly dream up. I found someone who seems to seriously think the earth is flat! And that it is a huge cover-up calling it a sphere. Out of curiosity, I read several of his “papers” on the subject (thinking it had to be a spoof). His “logic” is seriously twisted and demented. I found no truth to anything he said (not that I expected to…).

    So I often find the old adage to be true: Just because someone says something, does not make it true. Just because someone posts a video that says there are all these old gods whose stories are similar or the same as Jesus’, doesn’t make it true. That is one reason I am adamant about the truth, finding the real source of information, not just someone lying to try to and reinvent history for their own interests or perversions.

    Just on how wrong they got Horus’ account in this video (utterly and completely), I would not believe a thing that video says about any other “god”. I would place that video in the trash heap of useless propaganda pieces. Anyone who takes anything it says seriously is discredited… IMHO. You can wade through a heap load of garbage and refuse trying to find a small piece of something edible, or you can just go to where they serve good food. I’ll take a restaurant, thank you.

    Like

  180. Doc says:

    Well the O T in it’s truest form under this name is not Jewish. The Jewish Tanakh or Tora is the one I read the most. It is the one I was given in verbatim translation into engilsh which first made me say, wow I was never taught this in RCC sunday school. And my search started.
    God is capable of anything I do believe. Yet I’d be heart broken if you came back and asked if he could create a rock so heavy he could not pick it up. We’d have to sit at different tables for our dinner with Jesus.LOL
    I don’t see God as a magician I see him as the creator of everything, and one that has unending love for his creations. I see him wishing us well and maybe helping us from time to time. I believe his goal is to have his children return home to him when they/we die.
    But to understand him is way beyond my ability since there is so much of a universe that we may only be a spec of sand on the beaches of earth so to speak.

    Non denominational is no different than the RCC or any Baptist etc man made church that exists. The number of members does not give or take away from value in beliefs.

    Having a belief and sticking to it is one of the pillars of being a good and honest human as long as those pillars are supported with a good accurate foundation.

    The ‘Besides me there is no other savior’ is the post that got me the most grief here so it just kinda gets the most attention and will be the hardest hurdle for christianity to get over if they have the intent of getting over it. Whatever your beliefs are should remain your beliefs and I’m not in the business of changing peoples minds. I just like to get into them and try to understand where they are coming from and maybe learn a thing or two about my beliefs at the same time.

    Well the Mythra are based in historical writings and most have the same supporting or should I say they lack the same supporting documentation as the story of Jesus does.

    It’s really hard I guess to have so many entities throughout the past 6-8000 years having the near same life experiences which is why I had posted a link regarding the creation of the christian church belief system. Here it is in the event you have not seen it.
    http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book3TheGreatDesception/aTOC.htm

    Now I’m not basing all of my beliefs on this single article but when one takes a single item at a time and researches it, there begins to be a pile of reasonable evidence supporting the notion that the christian church was indeed just a man made duplicate of the many other duplicate religions from the past.

    I too have a busy weekend. Golf, barbecue, grandsons, some wine, clean up the cabin and the RV and then a good night with the kids and grandsons.

    Be safe, cya

    Like

  181. unkleE says:

    Hi Doc Stephen,

    It seems I’m not getting answers to questions, so I’ll try just once more. If you don’t want to answer, or don’t have answers, please say so, and I’ll stop pestering you.

    “As noted before the Catholic Encyclopedia and letters from past and present popes gives these details. I’ll look them up for you and send a link.
    You apparently don’t use the CE or follow the popes many statements to support christianity?”

    No, I’m not a Catholic and I’ve never looked at the CE before. But I did check it out, and it doesn’t seem to say anything like you have claimed. You keep saying that it says the NT wasn’t written until 4th century, but here’s a short quote: “The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years, i.e. in the second half of the first century.” This is what virtually all historians have concluded. This page also relates.

    So can you give the link that says what you have been saying please? Or can you explain why you are saying differently to the reference you have mentioned?

    “The OT books were written as time went on but like the christian bible were assembled if memory serves me right @ 600 BC but I’ll have to dig and get you dates.”

    Here you seem to be agreeing more with the historians and the CE. My question remains – if the process of writing the books and forming the canon of the OT and NT are both similar, and if the books of the NT were written closer to the events they relate than the books of the OT, why do you accept the OT but not the NT?

    “In addition and why this is such a problem for anyone is dating documents is nearly impossible. Carbon dating does not work on most writing medium.”

    Dating of ancient documents is not commonly done by carbon dating, as far as I am aware, because we don’t have the originals, writing materials can be re-used and so the date of the material may be way older than the text written on it, and because carbon dating is a destructive test. I understand that dating is done by looking at the material, the style of writing, references within the text, and references to the document in other sources of known date. Thus there is disagreement among scholars about some dates, but broad consensus on most of them. The dates assigned to the NT do not support many of the statements you have been making. This reference from Duke University may help.

    Just to reassure you, I have no wish to argue with you about your beliefs about God and Hosea, etc. I just feel we need to base what we say on the facts available, which you seem not to be doing. Assuming you have picked up a wrong idea from some unreliable source, I thought you would be interested to update your information.

    Best wishes.

    Like

  182. Doc says:

    “anyone can make and post ANYTHING”
    not only on the net, but anywhere and is why I posted it.

    This is one of the center posts of the tent I have criticizing christianities claims.
    They claim much but have no supporting evidence other than internal christian church cannon and documents that have been translated over and over and over again no doubt losing meaning due to textual criticism.

    Again, I’m sticking with the Big Guy.

    But it’s fun writing you, back and forth!
    CYa

    Like

  183. unkleE says:

    OK Stephen, I guess I can take that as saying you aren’t able to back up your factual claims? In that case this may be a good place to stop. Thanks for sharing your ideas and for your courtesy. Best wishes.

    Like

  184. Doc says:

    As indicated if this is in reference to the number of christian denominations I’ll stick with over or about 40k.
    If this has to do with the last post regarding ‘anyone can post anything’ then I’m kinda lost.
    What have I noted that was not easily researched by anyone?
    Cya

    Like

  185. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, most of what you have noted is easily researched, that is what makes it so clear that you are mistaken. Any research shows that.

    I was referring to your statements that the New Testament wasn’t written until the 4th century, and was written by the corrupt Catholic Church. For instance, on 7 January, 2016 at 7:47 am you said: “The gospels were not written by the supposed persons that have been associated with their writing but instead were written by priests hundreds of years after the Jesus lived.”

    You haven’t offered any evidence to support this claim, and it is contrary to what historians know about the past. I have shown from the source you claimed (the CE) that the church’s view is the same as the historians, more or less. There is plenty of evidence for all this.

    Likewise you have offered no evidence for your view that the OT is better evidenced.

    Now like I said, I have no thought of changing your beliefs about God, but I do want to at least give you the opportunity to get the best information, so you can speak the closest to truth we can.

    I am not a Catholic and I know that the Catholic Church has done some evil things in the past. If you have been hurt by the church, then you have me deepest sympathy, and I will pray for you. Would you like to talk about that some more?

    But it is possible to reject everything bad that the Catholic Church has ever done, and still accept the historical facts. I hope and pray that you can find both peace and truth. Best wishes.

    Like

  186. Doc says:

    I do apologize if not clear, but the RCC encyclopedia states all of this regarding the gospels.
    The pope has acknowledged that they are written by priests, not the apostles.
    They still consider them cannon because they feel the documents the priests had read that were also translations of earlier translations were still God inspired.
    But it’s only a person saying this, not God. This is my reasoning for making the statements.

    “the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era”

    (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

    “the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD”

    (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

    “in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them”

    (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

    These are only a small example of things one can read from the catholic encyclopedia and other sources.

    Cya

    Like

  187. Doc says:

    Unklee:
    Look at the link below and scroll down to:

    How the Gospels were created

    You’ll read a lot of documented statements that the RCC/Popes/Cat Encyclopedia have as facts in their teachings I believe.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

    Not everything is 100% accurate as is the case with any man made document or statement but the vatican has agreed to quite a bit of these statements and have them in the cat encyclopedia.

    Like

  188. Doc says:

    Unklee,
    Have you read this?

    Pope Leo X, 1513-1521:
    “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us.”

    A RCC Pope said this about his own foundation of the church he led.

    Cya

    Liked by 1 person

  189. Doc says:

    Unklee:

    or this? (here is why there are so few documents available to christians)

    Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: “Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released”. It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died.

    Like

  190. Doc says:

    The gospels?

    “It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves … they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings.”

    (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

    Like

  191. Doc says:

    Jesus:

    the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable”

    (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.).

    Like

  192. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, thanks for the information. All your references seem to come from the one reference you quote, so let’s look at it.

    1. I note that the website you reference isn’t the Catholic Encyclopedia, or a reputable historical site (e.g. by a university), but is a conspiracy site. It doesn’t give me a lot of confidence, and the fact that it is the only one you have referenced suggests you aren’t interested in reliable history, but conspiracies. But let’s see what it says.

    2. Several of your references are to Pope Leo X, who lived in the 16th century and can hardly be considered a historian, or representing what the Catholic Church thinks today. There is some doubt whether he actually said what has been ascribed to him (see the second answer here), and in any case there are conflicting views about his character and motivations according to Wikipedia and this rather questionable site. He was reportedly not a priest, but a warrior and a bit of a party boy. I would think you may be able to sustain an argument that his life demonstrates the corruption in the Papacy and the RCC at that time, but I hardly think any alleged pronouncement of his on the NT carries a lot of weight.

    3. The version of the CE that is quoted by your reference, and which you have copied, was published a century ago. It is probably a fair document to quote, provided it is quoted fairly, but it is quite out of date now. There is a revision of the CE, though not everyone thinks it very good, but we should surely reference it and give it at least as much credence as the earlier version.

    4. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t say what you allege about the writing of the NT. Your quote “the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD” is revealing, and not strictly true.

    You do realise that extant means surviving and known today? It doesn’t refer to when the gospels were first written, but to the copies that we have. Documents in those days didn’t last a long time, so copies were made by hand, and copies of copies, etc. This means some copying errors and deliberate changes can occur, but because we have so many copies of all or part of the NT (something like 20,000 in all, more than 5000 of them in the original Greek language and the rest in other languages) the changes can be identified. If most of the copies agree, then any changes occurred very very early in the process. So Helmut Koester is able to say:

    “Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek… The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.”

    So, as I have shown you from the modern CE (and it is much the same in Wikipedia), the books which later came to be assembled in the NT were all almost certainly written in the second half of the first century. We don’t have any original, but we have 13 portions of the NT written by about 200 CE, and many more written before 300 CE. As Wikipedia points out, we know this because they are quoted by others before 300 CE.

    So I am quite willing to agree that there were times when the RCC was corrupt. But some of the claims of your reference are not supported by scholars, and it makes the whole website very doubtful.

    So that is why I say that there is better information out there than the things you are referencing. I hope this helps.

    Like

  193. Scott says:

    Doc Stephen – sorry I do not have time for my normal dissertation at the moment, but a question popped into my mind for you:

    How do you read Gen 1:26 and 3:22? Who is the “us” and “our” in 1:26 and “us” in 3:22?

    Like

  194. Doc says:

    O’Tay!
    But it will not change the facts.
    Besides 200 and 300 AD are so past the apostles lives that it simply supports the statement that the actual authors could not be the apostles or first line followers of Jesus. They would not have been alive. These are stories passed down at the best.

    And again, the most detailed citizenry in history previous to 800 AD was the Roman civilization and they have not one document about Jesus, why is that? It seems that such magnificent and impacting circumstance would have had volumes written about Jesus?

    And why would someone claim or choose a specific Catholic encyclopedia over an other. Does newer support your stance better than older or visa versa? The older one was written closer to the times of the happenings and should be more correct as you imply in your belief that there were earlier gospels than those written by scribes/priests for inclusion in the NT when it was written and assembled for the first time in 325 AD.

    It’s unlikely the RCC will produce a second or third and in them claim they were wrong in publications 1 or 2.

    The website I caught links from is only a website that came up quickly with links to the catholic encyclopedia that I could cut and paste. I have no idea who it/they are.
    I’ve read enough of the CE enough to pick up on the ones that come to the surface of this old man’s brain though. They are accurate though.

    I’m really not head strong about most of these items, they are simply church cannons and nothing else to me. Each denomination has them. I started out on this blog with a statement about the # of denominations and whether or not God or Jesus was my savior. They were my most inquisitive points regarding christiaity.

    I am sorry if I have gotten something in a stir, it was not by intent.

    Like

  195. Doc says:

    Scott,
    As I may have fallen into a problem here, I’ll try to explain myself once clearer.

    When I say the current NT, I refer to the 325AD publication, which per the RCC was the first completed/published/used NT for the christian church of the world.
    When I say the gospels were not written by the apostles, I mean the gospels in this NT were not written by the apostles. This whether or not any one person wants to agree with or not is noted in the catholic encyclopedia. The vatican states that this is the case. Priests or scribes working for the church penned these at the first council.

    This seems to take on a life of its own. I’m simply saying that there is no proof that any of the apostles wrote anything. If they did, I’d like to see it is all that I’m saying. The gospels are man made for man. They are not Gods words and if they were, I’d like to see the supporting documents stating so with scientific proof.

    You wrote:
    I have had heard this from other people too. However, when they did their research, they were confused. They confused “writing” with “compiling”, which is a common mistake. The council of Nicaea in 325AD gathered “existing” books together to compile them into one volume.

    Now think about what you said.
    If the gospels were not written (or re-written as I have also indicated) at the first council how could the 50 copies that the vatican claims were produced and distributed have been created, all with the exact same wording?

    One cannot simply ‘want’ 50 duplicates to appear. They have to be ‘written’ so this is what I’m saying about them being written at the council.

    There are many statements by the vatican in the CE that state who was at the council, what they did, the thousands of documents that were brought and what they did with them, and how they decided on which were and which were not to be included in this new, NT. At that point in time, I call the NT a man made publication and nothing more.

    Hope this clears up some of my mud.

    Like

  196. Doc says:

    Wiki is a nice place to learn some general things but it is not a place for ancient documents to be learned about.
    The single largest source of stored ancient documents relative to the christian belief system is the RCC.
    That is the only source I ever go to. They have the doc’s. But then again they are very stingy with letting out any info.
    I have to go to my jewish friends that actually have access to these types of systems and get what I can from them, and they have no dog in the hunt.

    Like

  197. Scott says:

    Stephen,

    Are you spending too much time out in the sun fishing? 🙂 I’m not sure why you are answering a post of mine from a week or two ago… My recent post had to do with 2 verses in Genesis. However, since you have made some recent statements that I feel obligated to rebuff…

    You wrote:

    “Now think about what you said. If the gospels were not written (or re-written as I have also indicated) at the first council how could the 50 copies that the vatican claims were produced and distributed have been created, all with the exact same wording?”

    Stephen, this is quite annoying. You are obviously old enough to know better than to twist the meaning of my words like that, so it appears you are reverting to sophomoric arguments. Alas, I will tell you what you should already know.

    In previous posts you kept using the word “written” as if to mean “created” as “original”. That was what I was countering… the documents were not “created” as “originals” at 325AD. And there are THOUSANDS of old documents in existence today to PROVE that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your choice to ignore that evidence is your business. But to twist the obvious meaning of my words… is simply beneath you.

    You wrote:

    “When I say the gospels were not written by the apostles, I mean the gospels in this NT were not written by the apostles.”

    Of course, if you use the word “written” as you have twisted my words to mean, that is obvious. They would not have been alive in 325 AD to write those ones, nor any since.

    But that is not what we were originally discussing. We were discussing that the original, first drafts of these documents were in fact written, created, penned by the apostles. You say they were not, I say they were. Again, we are at a stalemate. We cannot go ask Matthew, Mark, Luke or John personally. While I think the evidence supports them being the original authors, you do not. So… once again, we agree to disagree. I am ok with that. Are you? (If you want to discuss various pieces of evidence, I am ok with that too….)

    My challenge to you is to stop saying “they were not written by the apostles” but instead say “in my opinion, they were not written by the apostles.”

    You wrote:

    “The vatican states that this is the case.”

    Do you believe everything the vatican says? I don’t. So, this is a useless argument to me. Just because they say it is so, I don’t care. (And, neither should you, in my opinion…) I go back to my old adage: Just because you (or anyone) say something – and in some cases, multiple times – doesn’t make it true. I will always ask, where is the evidence?

    You wrote:

    “I’m simply saying that there is no proof that any of the apostles wrote anything.”

    Let me, again, attempt to correct the actual underlying meaning of what you wrote. I think what you might mean is:

    “I’m simply saying that there is no proof, THAT I BELIEVE, that any of the apostles wrote anything.”

    I think that would be more honest. According to many, there is more than enough proof for them. You just seem to pick and choose what you want to believe. And I am OK with that. But I’m not OK with you stating as “fact” that “there is no proof that any of the apostles wrote anything.” That is simply ignoring tons of research that has been done on the topic. Believe what you want, but making statements that are counter to tons of evidence and research, to me is a worthless exercise.

    You wrote:

    “I call the NT a man made publication and nothing more.”

    THAT I can accept. You owned that statement and I applaud you for it. YOU call the NT a man made publication, nothing more. That is your prerogative. Again, you will get no beef from me when you state your beliefs. Like we have already established, everyone has the right to their own beliefs (just not their own “facts”). I don’t mind challenges to my beliefs. I can always use the exercise.

    I apologize if I came across a bit edgy in this post. It annoys me to have my words obviously twisted. I could use the same tactic, but I think it is a silly ploy that doesn’t really get us anywhere. I seek truth and understanding – and employing arguments designed just to belittle the other person or confuse the issue takes energy away from those objectives.

    Now, if you don’t mind… I recently asked you a question about a couple verses in Genesis. I am interested in your thoughts on those verses. I have my own thoughts, of course, but I thought it could be a fun exercise to banter about them. 🙂

    Like

  198. Doc says:

    You’re cool, I was also responding (i guess indirectly) to Unklee since he/she is pretty set on believing the NT is just the texts from the apostles written verbatim, and I’m not putting words in his/her mouth, it just seems that is what they believe.

    You and I have no bone to pick except some great trout backed up with a little wine and a hearty ho ho ho discussion! lol.
    Did not mean to post anything to upset the cart, not my intentions.
    I need to think more when I post since I seem to be posting to several persons here.

    Anyway, it’s all good, we agree on a lot and the differences are minor in my opinion because we all can believe what we desire to and that’s good.

    CYa

    Like

  199. Doc says:

    Scott:
    Gen 1:26 tells me that there are more than one entity, maybe not more than one top dog God of Gods but others that look like us (in general or possibly quite specifically). We are told the messengers (angels) look like us and at one time some were angered to have to bow to humans (adam / eve). So it might just be his messengers. Could be his wife and other sons if one were to believe in An or Anu and the anunnaki, which also does not sound too far fetched if one reads all the lit. available for it. But it’s just one of those branches that lots of folks don’t like to hang out on. But the Sumerians did indeed exist.

    3:22 could be a toss up. We have either become like ‘them’ in the sense that we can tell right from wrong or it is a restatement that we look like ‘whomever God is talking to’.

    I for one am going to reach out on a limb here and say:
    ‘I believe it is possible that what/who we call God could be of an extraterrestrial form.
    I say this because if God is not from the planet earth and or this solar system then he is in a way extraterrestrial, if we are using literal specifics.
    I have no problem believing that there are many many many different creations of Gods somewhere in this universe that is claimed to have no ends.
    I’d be sad if we are the best he could create.

    With the many times Enoch went up with the star people and returned with knowledge to spread to the people, it just cries out “space ship” “extraterrestrial beings” “martians” or something like that. Now I’m assuming that the book of Enoch is as real a book as the Jews claim it is since I have no personal knowledge of it’s origination but could look it up through my jewish friends.

    I’m just saying?

    Like

  200. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen,

    “I am sorry if I have gotten something in a stir, it was not by intent.”

    There’s nothing to be sorry about – we’re having a polite conversation, which is good. My concern is that you understand the conclusions of historians. If you don’t want to accept them, that’s up to you.

    “Besides 200 and 300 AD are so past the apostles lives that it simply supports the statement that the actual authors could not be the apostles or first line followers of Jesus.”

    Stephen, you are still, apparently, misunderstanding. 200 and 300 CE are the dates of the earliest copies we have found, NOT the dates of writing. Virtually all historians conclude that the gospels were written in the second half of the first century, and were compiled within a generation of the events from eye-witness reports – some think these reports were much modified by the early church, some think hardly at all, but almost all agree they are useful historical documents.

    The authors are not named in the text, but the traditional names would likely have been written on the outside of the scrolls. Some scholars think all or some were written by the named authors, others do not. It is not actually a very important question. But the authors were definitely first century.

    I can give you references for any of this if you doubt it is a fair summary of what historians say. Would you like any more information?

    “the Roman civilization and they have not one document about Jesus”

    This is quite inaccurate. Look up Tacitus and Pliny just for starters. They don’t say much about Jesus (why would they be interested?) but they say enough to show whoever told you this was mistaken.

    “Unklee since he/she is pretty set on believing the NT is just the texts from the apostles written verbatim, and I’m not putting words in his/her mouth, it just seems that is what they believe.”

    Just to clarify, I am a he (name is Eric), and you have misunderstood my view. I said a while back: “This means some copying errors and deliberate changes can occur …” That clearly means the texts we have aren’t necessarily or always “verbatim”. But they are enough to get good historical information – how much is a matter of judgment.

    So, is there anything more I can give you, or do you accept that almost all the historians say the NT documents were written down in the second half of the first century?

    Thanks.

    Like

  201. Doc says:

    I’m going to have to just beg off this.
    It’s my own fault for not being more open to, if’s and’s or but’s.

    I only take actual factual documents as proof.
    It doesn’t matter which historians claim this or that. Humans with theories.
    It’s a person claiming something they can’t prove; not even the probability of it being true. IMHO

    The actual provability of the statement that the doc’s that the NT is made up of were written in the second half of the 1st century just doesn’t exist.

    Again it’s the rubbing point where a human is making a claim that can’t be proven and isn’t even right minded to claim. IMHO

    The language used back then, the writing style, just doesn’t match up what we have in the NT and with the RCC themselves claiming their own priests wrote what we read in the NT today is enough for me.

    I think we don’t really have that long of a bridge to cross in actuality.
    I’m not saying that documents from long ago and far away don’t exist. They certainly do. I’m more concerned that the current NT as we see it, would not look like any document from the 1st century in verbiage or style, so I use this fact to say they were written much later, by priests, as stated by the RCC for use in the NT created at the first council.

    I think I’m speaking in terms of literally written and you may be thinking in terms of they were written back then but acknowledge they were re-written over and over again and again by many different persons. But maybe not. I’m not speaking for you regarding this issue. Just guessing?

    Remember, there were probably only a few of what you call the ‘original’ NT docs and the world back then was quite large to assume they could cover the ‘known world’ with their limited reproduction abilities.

    And remember things like the letter ‘J’. It did not even exist till 1500 so it could not have been in the original documents. And I am not saying you believe that it was, I’m just saying that once an original doc has been reproduced over centuries, it loses a lot of it’s original content and takes on the writers attributes (textual criticism). Can’t be avoided

    This is why I believe that until the day came that many scribes could sit and be lectured to so that they could all write the same document, that any multitude of documents is questionable unless in hand to compare the old with the new, and this can’t be done.

    I believe this document creation (NT) happened after the first council closed, as the RCC claims, when 50 copies of the final agreed upon set of documents were completed and distributed.

    No disrespect ever intended by any comment or idea I have or hold. I’m just trying to ask the questions that I have no real ‘placed in concrete’ answer and find it hard to take a persons word for something without some first hand experience in the event and some sort of documentation along the road.

    It’s enjoyable communicating with you no doubt.
    CYa

    Like

  202. Doc says:

    Unklee,
    Basically we’re good I think. Nothing too big to just nod and move forward I hope.
    Sorry to be difficult. I’m old.LOL

    Like

  203. Scott says:

    Hey Stephen!

    Check to make sure you haven’t accidentally switched your bait with your meds… 🙂 I hate to point out that you are not making a lot of sense to me here. First you say:

    “I only take actual factual documents as proof.”

    Then you say:

    “…and with the RCC themselves claiming their own priests wrote what we read in the NT today is enough for me.”

    Do you not see the dichotomy of these two statements? On the one hand you accept the “words” of the RCC as “gospel” (pun intended), yet on the other hand you do not accept the “Gospel” words they have “created”. I find this remarkably fascinating… in a sort of anti-logical way. Truly you have a dizzying intellect… 🙂

    However, I must commend you on your increased recent usage of “IMHO” though… 🙂 It helps ME feel better anyway … LOL! 🙂

    I would like to address one thing that you have brought up before:

    When you say:

    “And remember things like the letter ‘J’. It did not even exist till 1500 so it could not have been in the original documents.”

    I will agree with you that the letter “J” did not exist in the original documents. In fact, I will go so far as to concede that NONE of the English words that are in the NT appeared in the original documents. NONE of them! Because they are ENGLISH words, not Greek or Aramaic. So of course the letter “J” won’t be in the original… it is an ENGLISH letter, not Greek or Aramaic.

    I do not know where you have gotten this information as an argument, but it strikes me as silly. That is what happens when you translate from one language into another, whether the translation is verbatim (direct, word-for-word) or contextual. You must spell things in the language they are going into using the letters of the language they are going into, not the letters of the language they are coming out of. So, of course, you will have all sorts of letters that do not exist in the other language, including the letter “J”.

    Am I making sense here? Have I misunderstood what you are trying to say? Because the EXACT SAME argument can be made for the “OT” scriptures. The letters of the words that you are reading today DID NOT EXIST in the original Hebrew. Did not exist. Plus, I know of nobody who is legitimately claiming that the words in the current NT are the exact words in the original. They CAN’T be for either the NT OR the OT. Words in one language do not generally translate word for word into another language. So if you are reading the books of the OT in English, then you are NOT reading the original words of the text, therefore, not the original words of God. Sorry.

    Stephen, it seems fair to conclude that you honestly do not want the NT to have any validity in your mind whatsoever. And that is fine with me. 🙂 And you do not even have to have a reason IMHO. You can just choose to believe what you believe. Sometimes I do that… choose to believe something just because I choose to believe it… not based on anything rational or logical. 🙂 (But this is not one of those cases… 😉 )

    And now back to your regularly scheduled fishing expedition… 🙂

    Like

  204. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen

    “I only take actual factual documents as proof.”

    Basically that is the point I have been trying to make. Consider:

    1. You have still offered only two reference documents in all this – both unreliable, non-historical conspiracy sites. They are NOT factual documents.

    2. These documents quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, but you have never offered any direct reference to that publication. We don’t know if they have quoted it fairly or not.

    3. You seem to be under the impression that the CE is an official document of the RCC, for you keep saying that. But are you aware that it is not, but was published by an independent publishing house? (See Wikipedia)

    So all your references to it as embodying the teachings of the RCC appear not to be factual.

    4. You seem also to be unaware that the authenticity and provenance of most OT books is way less reliable than that of most NT books. So you are applying inconsistent standards.

    So if you actually want to take the most factual documents, you would need to change all that. But I’m guessing that you genuinely believe what those very unreliable websites told you, and it is a bit too soon for you to be willing to see that. But hopefully you’ll reflect on that.

    So like you suggest, it is probably time to close down this discussion. But perhaps when you next feel moved to comment on a website, you may choose to check the references and choose ones that are better credentialled and more reliable than the ones you have used this time. Hopefully that will be helpful for you.

    Thanks, and best wishes.

    Like

  205. Doc says:

    Been enjoyable but the OT is the one book that was not made up like the NT was and as it was proven in this blog to have been made up by the first council and it’s re-writing or actually creating of scriptures. The RCC CE notes such and they are the hallmark for christianity worldwide. Not my cup of tea but the hallmark nonetheless.

    You folks are great communicators and it has been fun.

    Be good enjoy life, hug your loved ones, and we’ll see you ‘there’ when we all pass and meet the ‘big jabronie’ for our judgment day. Then we’ll see if Gods words are Gods words or not; or if the words of the christian movement are Gods words.

    Cya

    Like

  206. nebošlo (@preseznik) says:

    This is a strange argument, as any scientific poll will show that not only are there far more than 40k differing beliefs among christians, there’s as many as there are believers themselves. Not one person holds the same exact belief or combination of beliefs about every single thing to do with religion .

    Very, very strange argument.

    Like

  207. unkleE says:

    Hi, thanks for reading and commenting. I’m not sure there is much of an argument here, I was mainly trying to answer a question I had been asked by finding the best facts I could.

    I wonder if you could refer me to one of the “scientific polls” that you mention please?

    Like

  208. Rév.Nestor Ndizeye says:

    Dear In Christ Pastor,
    I greet you in the wonderful name of our Lord Jesus Christ our King of Kings, I’m Rev Pastor Nestor Ndizeye,I’m leading a church named Redeemed Life Christian Church here Bujumbura-Burundi.I’m married, God blessed us 3 Biological children and five orphan’s when I visited your web site I was very interested with your mission and vision.I would like to ask you if possible to work with you.
    We would like to taking this wonderful opportunity to invite you here,so we can organise a leadership training and Revivals meeting and other programs.

    Please hope to hear from you

    God bless

    Rev Pastor Nestor Ndizeye
    Mob Phone (+257)75740770
    Bujumbura-Burundi.
    Africa

    Like

  209. unkleE says:

    Hi Nestor, thanks for your positive comments, and your invitation, but I don’t think that is what I should be doing. I wish you the best with it.

    Like

  210. Anonymous says:

    The individual with the handle DOC makes the claim; “the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era”

    You’d have a hard time getting that by any theologian or accredited person in Biblical studies. It’s good for some information but it is tainted throughout with Catholicism dogma. Not a great research tool at all.

    Like

  211. Doc says:

    Well, you may, in your view be correct, but in terms of the current day christian faith and what it is based on, the teachings it uses, the beliefs it holds, the RCC is indeed the single largest depository of documents regarding christianity worldwide.
    If you know of an entity that has existed from @ 325/328 AD up until this date that has more documents please provide me with the entity.
    Now note, I have not said I believe anything they say or that I am still a catholic, I do not, I am not. I was raised one and at 42 I started questioning things and after 10-15 years I have gotten to this point in life where I am convinced that christianity is a man made religion, has no actual rooting in the 0-33 AD times of Jesus, in fact the story of Jesus seems to have been made up as much as real.
    I base this on there being no documents in existence regarding his life during the Roman Empire’s existence. The most heavily documented civilization in history through their reign. I am talking about original documents. Christians always point to later day translations by Greeks and others and claim that hundreds of years or so later it’s still the truth, that the translations are exact and not changed but no one has the original documents to prove it up. Just a farse I’d say.
    But that should not prevent anyone from living a good life and being a good person and believing in whatever man made religion they would like to. It’s just man made.
    If all of these things christians talk about actually happened it is obvious to me that somewhere the hierarchy or religious leaders or writers of that period would have documented these miracles and his death/resurrection. The resurrection alone would or should have been written about for a century and the entirety of the Roman civilization should have converted and there should be statues and monuments and all the same things that people did for rulers all over the then know world.
    Instead, there are no verifiable documents from that period of time that mention Jesus.
    So I’m just doubtful it is anything except a man made religion based on a pagan ruler fulfilling his need to protect himself from the church of England, the RCC, and did what he could to unite the thousands of different man-made religious groups at that time.

    Like

  212. Scott says:

    Hey Doc –

    By your quote:
    ” no one has the original documents to prove it ”
    most of the people who we KNOW have existed in ancient times would be tossed out as having not existed based on lack of “original documents” to prove it.

    We have learned of the existence of many people in history through non-original documents (because most very old original documents do not hold up through the ravages of time) through copies of copies of copies of various writers and writings, many dating hundreds of years after the person lived. Using similar scientifically and historically accepted and proven techniques, there is more evidence that Jesus existed than any other person in history by several factors of magnitude. If you choose to ignore this, that is your choice. The evidence is huge and verifiable, but you are free not to recognize it.

    Also many of your criticisms of the Catholic church are actually shared by many who call themselves “Christians”. Many Christians do NOT hold up the Catholic church to represent “Christianity” at all.

    It is not my goal here to bash Catholics. What I am trying to point out is that you appear to constantly equate Catholic with Christianity and, while they are related, they are not the same. It would be akin to stating that all math is the same – ignoring the major differences between addition and subtraction and algebra and calculus. This over-simplification does not help support your arguments and actually kind of discredits them.

    The term “Christian” means a follower of Christ (or his teachings). (At the time it was coined, it was actually a pejorative term.) There have been followers of all sorts of people throughout history, and they all tend to get labels of one sort or another. “Christianity” is then a belief system based on Christ’s teachings. Many organized denominations have gone beyond what Christ taught. Many have developed their own belief systems and tend to have their own names: Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc. Christianity is a common thread in all, but it is not the same as any.

    To say that “Christianity” (following Christ’s teachings) is made up is ridiculous. It is the same as saying Buddhism is made up. Following the teachings of Buddha is Buddhism, just as following the teachings of Christ is Christianity. The only way it makes sense to say it is made up is if these individuals never existed. History teaches us that both of these people lived. Therefore, following either person is something that can actually be done. (Personally, I don’t believe that Australia exists so “Australians” are made up… 😉 )

    Now, if you want to say that Catholicism is made up, there you may have some valid points. Catholicism is “based on” Christianity, but they have added much more than what was originally in Christ’s teachings. Many religions do this.

    The paragraph that starts out:
    “If all of these things christians talk about actually happened it is obvious to me that somewhere the hierarchy or religious leaders or writers of that period would have documented these miracles and his death/resurrection”
    illustrates a tremendous lack of historical knowledge and perspective. Jesus was a THREAT to the religious leaders of the time. THAT is why they killed him. Like the Catholic church tried to do with the writings of Martin Luther, the religious leaders of Jesus’ time wanted to erase his existence from the face of the earth.

    You obviously have strongly held opinions, which you are entitled to – we all do. But many of your “facts” are not facts, they are just your strongly held opinions based on your beliefs. In this forum, we are happy to go over any evidence, piece by piece, scientific method by scientific method, to discover whatever is the Truth. Anyone can say anything – but it doesn’t make it right. One ought to be open to the possibility that what they hold on to as the truth, may in fact not be. If anything that I state as fact can be proven to be wrong, I will recant it without hesitation. You have always struck me in the past as one whose mind is made up, so continued discussions on these topics tend to go nowhere with you as you do not seem interested in anything but what you already believe. This saddens me because I thoroughly enjoy discovery and analysis – but that is not for everyone, and you are free to be you. 🙂 But, as you already know, things stated as facts here are going to be challenged. 🙂

    Enjoy the fish! 🙂

    Like

  213. Doc says:

    Took a lot of words for you to say what I have been saying all along.
    But thanks.

    The christian faith has no ancient texts to support their beliefs.
    I have never said it did, and never said the catholic church did either.

    ALL christian texts originate only as far back as 325/328 AD, the first ecumenical council. If I am wrong please direct me to a place I can read about them. Not a maybe if and but; a real source with real ancient texts. Otherwise this discussion is a moot point.

    A piece of papyrus here and a piece there is not a document.
    All this gets one is an assumption, not a religion. Which is my main point.

    Besides God never condoned any religion, they are all man made.
    Who believes God cares more for a christian than he does for a Krishna or Jew. He just wants as he told the Prophet Amos: ‘A flow of justice and righteousness throughout his world.” Pretty simple. One needs not a man made religion to be saved since God told the prophet Hosea “besides me, there is no other savior.”

    He asked for no man made religion to be made. Man did it.

    Like

  214. unkleE says:

    “ALL christian texts originate only as far back as 325/328 AD, the first ecumenical council. If I am wrong please direct me to a place I can read about them.”

    Hi DOC, there are plenty of places you can read this. Here’s one – Wikipedia, based on a bunch of references to historians which you can look up. It gives the dates of composition of the four gospels as 65-73 for Mark, 90-110 for John, with Matthew and Luke in between. That is the consensus of all but a few historians.

    Paul’s letters are dated even earlier – 50-57 (Wikipedia).

    I think you are confusing the date of composition of the gospels (first century) with the date when they were incorporated into the New Testament and officially recognised by the church (4th century), two very different things.

    Like

  215. Doc says:

    So you are going with this, your wiki link?

    “Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[32]) view as follows:”

    Read it please. This is the link you sent me.
    If you do not see a constant flow of ifs, ands, buts, candy and nuts, and not a single definitive statement other than there are fragments and none of the fragments have the authors signature or written name on them. Come on, really?

    I thank you for the supporting docs. Makes my life easier.

    But I like you, you debate without being hateful or potty mouthed.

    Cya

    Like

  216. unkleE says:

    DOC, the dates given in Wikipedia are the dates the historians believe they were written. That is very different, not just for the Bible but for all ancient documents, than the dates of the latests copies we still have (the originals and most copies haven’t survived).

    We have ACTUAL COPIES much earlier than the 4th century dates you are quoting, and we have references to them in other writings much earlier than the dates you are quoting – as the Wikipedia article mentions. So the information you are accepting here shows the dates you have offered are not right.

    Like Scott says, if you want to believe what is against the evidence, that is not something I want to argue over, but if you ask for the evidence as you did, then surely you should accept it and not misrepresent what it says?

    Like

  217. Doc says:

    I understand, we have lots of COPIES and no actual DOCUMENTS other than the COPIES.

    The OT on the other hand is supported by much older texts, many are thousands of years older than the NT docs.

    I trust the OT more than the NT.
    Not 100% necessarily but I do trust it much much more.

    And I am not a Jew. Raised a catholic.

    Books of Enoch, Amos, Hosea give such wonderful information about the times and lives of people back then and their interaction with God himself. Albeit by words and not by face to face meetings, but still God chose to speak with and to these people. Nothing like that has ever happened and recorded since then.

    It’s as if when we hear ‘Gods Chosen People’, we don’t even understand how important that really is on a rock in space that is 14 billion years old and with possibly as many as 10 billion people having existed on it at one time or another.

    Such a small sect of all of those people the Hebrews/Jews were his choice.
    I just can’t gather it all in.

    CYa
    You are a cool one!

    Like

  218. unkleE says:

    Hi DOC, I’m not wanting to criticise your beliefs and opinions, only the things you think are facts.

    “I understand, we have lots of COPIES and no actual DOCUMENTS other than the COPIES.”

    Do you understand that is the case for virtually every ancient document including the Old Testament?

    Have you ever checked the gaps between the original OT books and the actual copies we have?

    Like

  219. Doc says:

    But the differences are not nearly what they are for the NT which is why it was written, whether or not you believe the religious scholars that say without exception, that it, the current day Christian bible texts, at the First Ecumenical Council.

    There is nothing anyone can say that disputes this event and the writing of the first bible comprised of the OT and NT. The same bible in one form or another that christians have and still use worldwide. That’s all.

    I’ve never said anything was a perfect situation in either the OT or NT. I just said the OT has more creds because of when it was written, who wrote it, who they were, who they still are today and the amazing life they live loving God without all the hub bub that the 40,000 or so christian denominations have.

    Christianity has become a marketable commodity. It’s no longer a faith. It has a fake birth date for their Jesus. Why is that?
    Christians celebrate Santa on the fake birth date of Jesus. Why is that?
    Christians can’t tell you where Jesus was for 18 years of his life and nearly nothing at all in the first 12. It’s just a bonkers man made religion.

    I don’t believe that christians are bad people, they are wonderful people. My mom was a catholic and although I had these same conversations with her, we got along marvelously. A great cabernet and some conversation with my mother was a wonderful afternoon. Same with my dad while he was alive. Both now gone on to God where ever that is?

    It’s just that the christian belief system is so skewed that I wonder why more people have not asked hard questions demanding answers.

    You are a good person, I want to tell you that. We just have different perspectives and I’m not trying to topple the apple cart. There is just nothing that christians can come up with to support their belief system and I can come up a thousand questions that are not answerable.

    CYa
    Got a new grandson Sunday, Cason. Going to hit the sack so I can get up early to see the rug rat.
    Later.

    Like

  220. unkleE says:

    Hi DOC, you seem to have a strong belief that is based on things that historians say are not true.

    Did you know that there is a far, far greater gap between the events of the OT and the documents we actually have than there is for the NT? (Many, many centuries longer.)

    If you want to know, here are some references: Wikipedia on Biblical Manuscript, List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts and Old Testament.

    There you will find statements like this (contradicting what you have said): “the lapse of time between the original manuscripts and their surviving copies is much longer than in the case of the New Testament manuscripts.”

    I have no wish to disturb what you believe, but if you ask questions about evidence and make statements that are contrary to all the evidence, it is only right that I point out the facts. If you don’t want to know the facts, it may be best not to ask for them.

    Like

  221. Scott says:

    Sorry Doc –
    You cannot use Amos anymore, based on your own requirements:
    There is far less evidence of the book of Amos than any book in the NT and no complete original texts exist, just fragments of copies. Even though these supposed “fragments” are thought to be a lot older, they are still much farther away from when it is “claimed” they were originally written. (Claimed written around 750BC; carbon dating of Dead Sea Scrolls dates the fragments found between 385BC-82AD: at MINIMUM that is 365 years from the “original” written date!! – hardly authoritative. The “best” carbon dating to projected written date of any NT book is 15 years – the Gospel of John, which at worst is calculated at 70 years. And don’t get into “carbon dating is invalid on documents” – that has been debunked several places.) There is also no “original document” that is “signed by the author”. The OT minor prophets were “written” into volumes (canons) hundreds of years after the originals “books” were “supposedly” written, so you could say the OT was actually “written” much later (many hundreds of years), just like the NT was “written” in 300AD. You also cannot use the argument that Amos was faithfully copied down by faithful scribes who followed strict protocols through the ages because 1) we don’t have the scribes names who did all the copying so we don’t know who actually copied them; 2) we don’t have a written document of the protocols followed so we cannot verify what procedures were employed; 3) we have no original signed document to compare against; 4) we have no witnesses we can question about the authenticity of the documents; and 5) they are not notarized as being authentic by any means whatsoever – signatures, time-stamps, wax impressions, or acts of God. Anything that you reference online from any source, whether in Israel or some other place on the globe, cannot be utilized as a reliable reference because it is all copies of copies. There is no original complete book of Amos in existence.
    Based on your own reasoning and measuring methods you have been employing in this blog forum to discredit the NT, you must cease and desist using any reference from Amos or from giving it any air of credibility in any fashion. In fact, you must throw out the entire OT as being credible in any fashion, again, based solely on the criteria you have already laid out for measuring the credibility of the NT.
    So please throw out both NT AND OT and I will applaud you for consistency. Otherwise, it is hypocritical with double-standards. 🙂

    Congrats on the new rug rat! 🙂

    Like

  222. Doc says:

    Lets leave it be. Nothing has been shown to me with any roots, not even the wiki link you sent. Because nothing exists except the real facts, whatever they are.
    I just chimed into a blog regarding how many denominations there were in Christianity and here is where it got me.
    We both will find out when we meet our savior, God himself, and that works for me.
    Be good.

    Like

  223. Scott says:

    Deal!
    But thanks for causing me to do a bunch of research. I have enjoyed our kicking things back and forth … even if you do exasperate me sometimes… LOL! (Just see things MY way and everything will be FINE! LOL!!!)
    You’re always welcome around my campfire. 🙂 And then we can find another topic where two stubborn codgers can find opposite sides to argue about … maybe politics!! LOL!! 🙂

    Like

  224. Scott says:

    If you ask 10 clergymen for their interpretation of a Biblical issue, you will get 20 different answers… 😉

    Like

  225. Truth Seeker says:

    when Jesus came to earth he started only 1 true religion, and that was Christianity. Men diluted and changed his teachings to suit their own agendas and included false doctrine such has hell fire , trinity and attracted believers through acceptance of pagan traditions and celebrations. 1 Cor 1:10 Paul said their should be NO divisions among you. John 4:24 says we must worship God in spirit and truth. False doctrines, divisions and removing the Sovereign Lord’s name from the bible could not be further from the truth and are indicators of false worship.

    Like

  226. unkleE says:

    Hi Truth seeker, thanks for visiting and commenting. There’s a lot of truth in what you say, but unfortunately there are many people who also think there is only one truth and only one church – but they don’t all agree with each other!

    Like

  227. Doc says:

    To each his own on this issue but Jesus was a Jew.
    He never spoke about christianity and never used the word either. In fact I’m getting dragged back into all of these little facts that people ignore and instead go off on some tangent quoting writings that are from the 4th century or later.

    There are no documents that are from his time. And none that show any connection or correlation to christianity and Jesus except by man.
    Man has done this, not Jesus.

    The Romans were the most documented civilization through their existence and they have not one writing about Jesus’ life/miracles/etc. Not one. I’m not saying some one named Jesus (even though the letter J did not exist until 1500) did not live somewhere I’m just saying that the RCC created this whole thing and people have just been sucked into it. IHS Isis/Horus/Seb. The floating Jesus in the air painting and the same thing thousands of years earlier of Krishna doing the same thing. It’s copy cat religion and nothing else.

    In fact there are no documents previous to the translated documents of the greeks that even exist regarding the christianity era. Please tell me where I might find these documents so that I can see them and study them? Please?

    People claim there is a small chard here or a small flake here or there but there are no documents. This is just empty hope. They do not exist. Please direct me to any link where they may be found. Documents from 0 AD through 50 AD. Anything, anything at all because if this were all true there would be writings spread all over the known world back then.

    The RCC has been quite clear on the authors of the Christian bible. It was first assembled in or @ 325/328 AD by Constantine at the first ecumenical council or locally called the first council of Nicaea. Priests wrote the gospels not the 4 bro’s.
    This has been acknowledged already, can’t we move on?

    Believe what you will it’s okay! But don’t lie to people. Lying is as sin is it not? We would not want to do that would we?

    Just live a good life, a great life, be kind, be the type of person God wants you to be.
    All he ever asked for was for ‘a flow of justice and righteousness throughout my world’. Book of Amos.

    And as far as being a savior? Book of Hosea ‘besides me, there is no other savior’. Straight from Gods mouth. Who ya gonna believe? God or the men that wrote the NT for christianity.
    CYa

    Like

  228. Scott says:

    Hi Truth Seeker,

    You gotta give Doc a bit of grace here. He keeps bringing up the same stuff that we have rehashed and rehashed throughout this blog (as you can see if you read the entire thing). He has his perspective as we all do. I find many things he says do not hold up to scrutiny and he doesn’t like some of what I bring up. So we agree to disagree and keep it friendly. Hopefully you have read the entire blog and can see the various points discussed at length. If you wish any point you read about further discussed, feel free to bring it up. We do like dialogue. 🙂

    Like

  229. pluviolover says:

    Should I just say no one knows how many denominations there are? You seem to say about 40 (a number I find more reasonable). There are thousands of independent “non-denominational” churches, but I don’t think they should be counted as a denomination. I have wondered about this over the years and never found an answer that I felt comfortable with.

    Like

  230. unkleE says:

    Hi, thanks for visiting.

    Yes I agree, we cannot say how many denominations there are because we don’t have a clear and agreed definition of a denomination. If we assume some definition along the lines of groupings of churches which align over doctrine and differ with other groupings in a significant way, then there are more than 40 (that is just a count of very basic belief systems) and less that 40,000 (they are mostly individual churches, not groupings).

    If we recognise that Lutherans in Sweden are not a separate denomination to Lutherans in Australia (for example) then the number would be at the lower end of the range, maybe several thousand, I don’t know.

    But I think counting denominations is pointless, because denominations separate not just because of disagreements, but because of practicality. The really issue is why christians can’t get along better, and that is, I think, really a scandal, but it can’t be measured in numbers.

    Like

  231. Doc says:

    I kinda think they all count no matter how one wants to stir the soup in their favor.
    Definition of a denomination:
    A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.
    There are tens of thousands of subgroups in christianity.
    There are indeed 40000+ different subgroups/major groups of christian belief systems.
    Christians like to feel as if there are only a few so that the core seems stronger but it’s just foolishness.
    Who cares if the religion one believes in has one or 100,000 different belief groups.
    We are all judged or our actions, not our man made religions. Or so God says.

    Liked by 1 person

  232. Danny says:

    So many churches and so many doctrines, but what church teach the true teaching of God. If we look at the teachings and examples of Jesus and of the early church of God, you will notice that these people follow mans teaching. Jesus kept the Sabbath and even after Jesus went to heaven the apostles kept the Sabbath day. Sabbath day was abolished 321 AD by Constantine and replaced with Sunday worship, a day to worship the sun god. This is all history and can be proven. There are so many other laws and teaching of Jesus that were changed and replaced with pagan teaching and customs. X-Mas is the birthday of the sun god, Easter is the celebration of the goddes of fertility and there is so much more that has been changed. So who follows the true teachings of Jesus? This is why Jesus said he would come again. Heb 9:28. And he will establish the true church in this last age micah 4:1. The true church that follows the true teaching of God and established by God is the The World Mission Society Church of God. http://english.watv.org/.

    Like

  233. Shoshana Dontwanto says:

    About 250 years BEFORE the ministering of the one known as “Jesus” as Second Adam there were many known as christians. These were the pagan followers of Serapis Crestus from Alexandria, Egypt. Curiously you don’t hear about them as a separate pagan group since early the 4th century, around the time Constantine became a ‘christian’ and made christianity the official religion of the Roman dictatorship; the ROMAN universal church. Their new church converged many pagan practices and ideas, along with the recycling of the pagan gods as virgins and saints.
    Yeshua (the real Messiah) and His Jewish disciples followed Torah, the ONLY scriptures they had at the time and called themselves followers of The Way. They were also known by their fellow Jews as Nazarene Jews. After Rome destroyed the Temple and ransacked Jerusalem all those practicing the basic principles of Torah, such as Sabbath observance and skewing the pagan celebrations such as saturnalia (xmas) for the 7 feasts of the Almighty were sentenced to death. These true followers of Yeshua that continued in the true faith were branded as ‘Jews’ and suffer fates such as being fed to the lions, crucifixion, boiled or burned alive, etc.

    Like

  234. Shoshana Dontwanto says:

    Yeshua Ha Moshiach (renamed and changed by the Roman political system as ieosus/Jesus cristus) was a practicing Jew that did not dishonor His Father’s Torah but argued for the CORRECT way to follow it and its true meaning. He was not an anomia (lawless) Messiah as portrayed by the Roman system. He paid the price for breaking Torah, He did not do away with it. His followers WERE NOT christians and could not have been christians because back in the day christians were PAGAN followers of the sun god Serapis Crestus.
    Rome tried to change the days and seasons of Yahveh changing Saturday (the ONLY day of rest SINCE the creation of this earth) to sun day, the pagan day of the sol invictus, also a day Cesar set aside to honor Cesar. Christian churches sadly follow ROME/Babylon and their false anomia “Jesus” rather than Yahveh and His only true Jewish Messiah, Yeshua, who taught Adam to keep Yahveh’s eternal Sabbath and who later gave Moses Yahveh’s Torah in writing.

    Like

  235. Doc says:

    I’m glad there is someone that has an open mind enough to challenge the christian doctrine without being men spirited. You have many good points about the falasey of christianity. However that particular religious movement that you reference was started in 1964, and I’m not certain God even interacted with the founder/founders as he did with the Hebrews.
    Again, I’m just saying I don’t believe it or any man made religion is ‘god made’ or ‘god condoned’. The book of Amos the Prophet pretty much tells us what God thinks about man made religions it seems.

    Cudos for a good post.

    Like

  236. Randy Gomberg says:

    Interesting. Sadly, however, there is no scientific objective proof for God’s existence, which accounts for man’s wide varied search with all his religious pursuits. No one can engage in a TWO-way conversation with God; it’s only one-way, through prayer. You can’t drive to see heaven and/or hell. No one has visited either place and returned with graphic descriptions. You just gotta “believe in faith”, which is a shoddy excuse and justification. Of course the atheists are just as dogmatic because they have no way of absolutely proving God DOESN’T exist. The ONLY way we will know God is under 2 conditions: WE, as spiritual beings (which we ARE, not silly human body beings) evolve to have the same attributes as God, or HE makes his presence objectively known to one and all for all time and can engage in TWO-way communication. Until then all metaphysical supernatural claims of any religion are suspect. Think about it. If God was here, objectified, why would you need ANY religion to tell you what to believe about Him. Hence all the Christian denomiations

    Like

  237. Doc says:

    I can’t agree with you any hardier.
    It there is a God, which I believe there is, there is no need for any religion, and all religions are man made. Got never asked us for one or to create one. He is all we would ever need.
    It does not matter what faith you follow, none gets you any closer to God than the other, only your actions do. All religions are man made.

    If there is no God then it again is useless to have religions and all are man made.

    Good well rounded simple statement.

    But you may get argued with here. Christians are a silly bunch at times, making up stuff that just does not exist. Much like all other man made religions.

    CYa

    Like

  238. Tj says:

    With all due respect. You came to the conclusion that we don’t need religions and that god is all we ever need. The thing is, if you believe in god and god is all you need, then you are forced to believe something about this god? What do you believe about this god? All Christian denominations (some with different set of rules and beliefs) have come to their own conclusions about god and yet somehow their conclusions are based on the Bible. You said you believe in god, but, do you believe in the Bible? Because if you do than you do than you should know that only your actions are not enough. And if you believe in the Bible than you should also know that the faith one follows does matter.

    Like

  239. Doc says:

    quite the contrary.
    there were no bibles back in the beginning of time.
    so those that came before bible were not saved? Really because of a bible?
    same silliness when christians claim that if you are not a christian you cannot be saved? really? so all those that came before christianity were not saved? Really?
    first bible that ever existed was written at the first council of Nicaea if we are referencing christian bibles. 325/328 AD. So no other bibles are of any value because this one was the very first? Really.
    If one knows God in his or her heart they need no man made written guidelines to be given eternal life by God. Who would ever believe that God needed man’s guidance to have people saved?
    Be good, live good, do good things in life, know your place is below God, try hard and accept the fact that you will fail many times but God will never turn his back on you. So, don’t turn your back on him.

    Like

  240. unkleE says:

    Hi James, that is an interesting list. It lists separately the Anglican Church in about 50 different countries. Do you regard them as separate denominations?

    Like

  241. Shoshana says:

    Neither Yeshua (“Jesus”) or His disciples were Christians as christians already existed more than 200 years before that. They were all practicing Jews who followed Torah the correct way rather than manmade precepts. Their only scripture was the one the Roman imperialists deemed “old” later on renaming it “Old Testament”. The Writings of the Apostles slowly began as letters to some of the congregations. Anyhow, most people could not read or write (at least among Gentiles) so they depended on the few that could.

    Israel as a people continues to be The Ekklesia or natural OLIVE tree unto which the wild OLIVE branches (without the cultivation of the word) are to be grafted so they form one, same as the Father and the Son are one. Does that mean Abraham, Moses, the prophets were not “saved”? Who walked with Adam in the garden? Who gave Moses the Torah and identified Himself as YHVH, which in Paleo Hebrew means “behold the hand; behold the nail”. Yeshua has always been the ONLY intermediary between Yah and man, regardless if He shows as “the angel of Yah” as He did when He handed Moses the instructions for living according to His will.

    There are 2 branches, two witnesses to the olive tree. The olive tree Yeshua was nailed to represents this joining of the two branches. One branch (Ephraim) went off into the world as the prodigal son but it is now returning home to The Way Yeshua showed us when He ministered as Second Adam, having been made with the same undamaged genetic composition as the first Adam.
    Unlike the first Adam, Yeshua did not fall for the adversary’s traps and stood firm till the end. Thus when He returns as Messiah Ben David with His army of angels, not only will the whole world see and hear Him but we will be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. Whatever was turned off in our genetic composition at the first fall will be turned back on and we will join Him to be taken to the WHOLE Promised Land which is to be restored.

    Like

  242. Anonymous says:

    I’m old and may be because of my age that I do not follow a couple of things you have written.

    You use a lot of words that are not in the actual original ancient Jewish Tora/Tanakah, but that is your freedom. People forget that mankind has changed much over the years to serve himself and not God.

    Yes, Jesus as he is called was a Jew. He was born a Jew and died a Jew.

    Your statement about christians existing some 200 years before that ………..
    I have no idea what ‘that’ is.

    Christianity could not have existed before
    1. Jesus came and went
    2. the use of the word christianity was coined, which I’m not certain we have proof as to when it was first used. It is said the word christians was used but there are no ancient texts other than translations by the greeks, so we don’t have any proof of a timeline or the actual use of the words.

    But I’m old.
    Cya

    Like

  243. Joe Machuta says:

    Thanks for writing this article. I see your point to a degree. I also see that the fragmentation of groups even among evangelicals actually does point to the fact that there is not a unified Christianity. It gives credence to Paul’s Thessalonian prophecy of “the strong delusion,” I think the division is much more profound than people believe and symptomatic of a much larger issue. People continue to ignore it with their heads in the sand. I am critical of the institution, but am also a follower who believes in Jesus as the Messiah and redemption as God’s ultimate plan for creation.

    Like

  244. unkleE says:

    Hi Joe, thanks for reading and commenting. I think a lot of this depends on the words we use. For example, “fragmentation” is a strong, emotive word, whereas “minor differences” sounds unimportant. Differences over major doctrines are significant, but minor differences are often just a matter of taste.

    My personal experience is that 50 years ago denominations were important, and people almost always stayed in the one denomination because they thought the others were wrong. But now it seems that most people don’t care so much, because they see the differences as relatively unimportant.

    Like

  245. Shoshana says:

    Yeshua is the Hebrew word often used in the Tanach (“old testament”) for salvation. Messiah’s name means literally salvation.
    The followers of Serapis Crestus from Alexandria Egypt where the original christians. These were merged later on within the Roman church along with a mulritude of diverse pagan traditions.

    Like

  246. Doc says:

    Well you use a lot of information and freely without any ancient texts supporting your position. I understand it is your belief and you are more than welcome to that.
    It’s just that speculation or assumptions or even someone telling you that this or that is the truth is not enough to make it fact.
    Do yourself a favor and pick any one of your claims and look for ancient text that make those statements. You won’t find it because they don’t exist.
    All the christian supporting documents are from translations by the greek scribes.
    Translation is not the same as the original documents simply because people interpret the ancient texts in different ways.
    As an example:
    The christians claim there was a virgin birth.
    When you or I look at the actual word they claim means virgin, you will find the real ancient texts do not have this word. They use a word that means ‘young girl’.
    So you can see how chrisitanity has created many ‘non truth’s’ to support it’s belief system as all man made religions do.
    So I’m not singling out christianity, I’m just giving you the reasons why your statements do not ring true.
    Look to the old/ancient hebrew and jewish texts that are verbatim translated.
    They read like spanish to english if you understand what I am trying to get across.
    The ancient texts are not fluid sentences as we speak today.
    Anyway,
    Wish you the best.
    CYa

    Like

  247. Shoshana says:

    Doc I have gotten this information as Yahveh’s Ruach guides me. Yes, in Hebrew the word Yeshua means salvation, that is the name the angel told the virgin Miriam (Mary) to name her first son, not ieosus.
    As to the deity Serapis Crestus from Alexandria Egypt, check it out in many places, including Wikipedia. Shalom

    Like

  248. Shoshana says:

    The fact is during the ministry of Yeshua Ben Yosef as Second Adam His followers were practicing Jews who met every Sabbath in a synagogue to learn Torah, Acts 15:21. The Writings of the Apostles were letters written to individual Nazarite Jewish groups that were later compiled into a book by the Roman empire. The only scriptures that Yeshua and His Jewish disciples used were the Tanach.

    Like

  249. Doc says:

    Well I’m real sorry but if you actually talk to a Jewish Theological Historian you are indeed going to find:
    The word Angel is not correct. It was originally in the ancient texts ‘messenger’.
    So there cannot be an Angle involved in this situation.
    The word Virgin is not correct. It was originally in the ancient texts ‘young girl’.
    Therefore the Jesus was not born of a Virgin woman. He was as human as you or I.

    You have to go back before Greek translations.
    This is known as the starting point for when the ancient documents began being translated to serve the ruling class or ruling religious class. Ask almost any theological historian.

    The Tora and Tanakah are many many thousands of years older than any christian document and they exist in their original form if one has connections to the Jewish faith. Since they began memorializing information on tin tablets, then on animal skins called parchment, then on papapyrus the Hebrews/Jews have maintained the most intricate group of documents that exist regarding man and Gods interaction from the days of Adam and Eve.

    You have to stay away from any translation other than a verbatim translation, which as I explained does not read as the documents you reference read.

    I have had many discussions with people believing that the name Jesus with the sound we know as the letter J existed. The sound we know as J for Jesus was not coined until @ 1500. Nearly 1500 years after the death of the Jesus.

    When reading real authentic ancient documents they are more like reading a hispanic sentence verbatim but reading it with english.

    Sometimes one has to know the meanings of words (some have several) and have a way to associate the words to the time frame they are being spoken in. Things do change but less in the Hebrew/Jewish faith than in any other.

    I’m not criticizing christianity, I was raised in it as a Roman Catholic and at age 42 started reading up on my faith and was surprised when I found so many wrongs by man. So many non truths by man to create and bolster a man made religion. So I left and have simply continued to believe in God and only in Gods words.

    I believe all good people will have everlasting happiness with God regardless of the man made religion they believe in. What I do not like or believe is being a good person is basing all their attitudes towards others beliefs on their own chosen man made religion.

    Let each to their own belief and judgement day. Persecuting people because they believe differently is not a good thing. A good christian has no better favor with god than a good Jew or a good Krishna. So I’d have to say live and let live but only state what can be proven by the real/true ancient texts. They are there for your reading if you only look and ask the right source.

    CYa, my best to you.

    I’m am not nor never have been a Jew so I am not advocating their beliefs or any other belief as mine. I simply respect them much because of their ancestry and connection with God many thousands of years ago. I’m just a believer in God.

    Like

  250. Shoshana says:

    Doc I used the word ‘angel’ because that is a term readily understood. Changing it to 4397. malak, malakim (pl) or messenger does not change who he was or what happened. Same thing with alma and its actual meaning. Hey I could go on a name rabbit trail all day long. Yah, Yahovah, Yahveh (pronounced Yahvay as in day), Yaweh, etc. Same with all the titles of the Almighty and their significance. YHVH in Paleo Hebrew means ‘behold the hand, behold the nail’. That is what the “malak/messenger of Yahveh” told Moshe when he asked in whose name do I tell Israel come these instructions for living (Torah)? Yeshua, name that I repeat simply means ‘salvation’ in Hebrew, answered Moshe “YHVH” but it so happens back then they spoke Paleo Hebrew and in Paleo Hebrew each pictograph has a meaning. So you see one could argue Yeshua revealed Himself to Moshe way back then.

    Of course Tanach antecedes the writings of the talmidim (disciples/apostles) by millennia. Moreover, Elohim walked with Adam in Eden instructing him in Torah as we can see Abel following The instructions, Gen 4:4, same as Noah obeyed later on when he entered 7 pairs of clean animals in the arc, Gen 7:2, and used from these to do sacrifices, Gen 8:20. The Books of Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilee testify to this. In Jasher it is explained how Abraham and later Yahudah were taught Torah, by Noah and his son Shem, who by the way was given by Noah ALL the Promised Land which perverse Canaan STOLE from him…

    The first Adam fell for whatever reason and Yeshua chose to come as Second Adam not just simply as man, meaning His DNA was not mutated, same as the first Adam’s. We are talking blood here. That is why the life is in the blood, in this case The blood of Yeshua, the only intermediary between the Eternal and man. Adam was called Adam because of the red blood in him (plus he was made of soil, another possible reference to redness). There are many components in our DNA that scientist do not know about and basically can only scratch their heads about their functionality. When Adam and Eve gave their authority to satan by accepting its lie they basically had spiritual (and some say physical) intercourse with that FALLEN angel/cherubim/malak/messenger of light, yet another rabbit trail. Oh yeah and yet here is another one, who or what was the “DARKNESS laying on the surface of the DEEP” in Gen 1? How, why and when did it get there? Are we to assume that all the accounts found in Scripture are in chronological order?

    Adam and Eve were not affected by time and space BEFORE the fall but had to be encapsulated (so to speak) in time and space after the fall. Yeshua (salvation) came as Second Adam with the same genomic composition as the first one but not having succumbed to the adversary’s enticements and having been sacrificed on a tree OUTSIDE the camp (city) across the Kedron valley (right about the location of the Red Heifer cow sacrifice) fulfilled certain requirements of Torah. As Second Adam, He righted Adam’s transgression taking on the TREE our curses becoming the paradox of the red heifer. Would accepting Yeshua’s sacrifice ENTERING IN COVENANT WITH HIM explain “we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is”? There is to be a spiritual quickening for those who follow Torah AND have faith (emunah) and are in COVENANT with Him followed by a physical quickening when Messiah returns in the clouds at the sound of His shofar. No, He is not taking people, much less those who do not follow Him, to live in heaven as Yah did not make man to live in heaven but to shamar or guard the earth and have authority here. According to the Tanach, the Eternal’s malakim will gather His people (both branches of Israel; Yehuda and Ephraim) from the 4 corners of the earth to go up or do Aliyah to the Eretz or Promised Land, Deu 30:3-3, Jer 3:18, 30:18, 31:8, 50:4-5; Ez 34:13, 36:24-28; Amos 9:14-15; Micah 4:6-7, so that this gathering will be greater than the one from Egypt. Jews in the land already will wonder about all the sons of Abraham coming.
    Shalom!

    Like

  251. Doc says:

    I respect your position but where you get your info is still confusing.
    One non-truth leads to another and another and another.
    That is why the foolish say ‘angel’ because they have been told a non truth.
    That’s not really God’s way is it? Telling non truths?

    YHWH according to the Hebrew/Jewish belief is a name for God.
    It may mean what you say but it is from a much later interpretation.
    Go look up what you are citing and tell me where I can read it.

    The Paleo Hebrew you reference, 22 characters, does not spell out the words you have noted. They are all Consonants, so how do you get the words you claim were from that language? You need to look these things up before you post them.

    Your statement is a (here we go again) mankind translation far far after the existence of the Hebrew/Jewish tribes. The statement of hand or nail is really something you need to retract. Those words are not in the Paleo Hebrew language nor can one create them with the Paleo Hebrew Language. It is a language of sounds much like Farsi if I had to use something to give a slight hint of what it may in a very far reaching way sound like.

    I explained how the true ancient documents are very hard to read. They do not make clear sentences like we do when we speak english.

    However, if you have any ‘ancient texts’, not translations of translations of translations, which is what you are using, then just send me the link and I’ll download it and read it and research it. It needs to have an author and some sort of timeline verified by some acceptable known source.

    CYa
    Be good.

    Like

  252. Shoshana says:

    Doc I wasn’t raised going to church, didn’t even know there was a Bible till I was an adult. Really I don’t get my info from books. I use books to CONFIRM the info Yah gives me as He reveals His word to me in the Bible. This He has been faithfully doing since His fall feast of 2000. Believe me I don’t publish anything till I have confirmation from at least two witnesses. The Christian church has essentially inherited falsehoods from her parents or ancestors, Jer 16:19, which she is to leave behind and cling on to the one she claims to love. Then she will want to follow Him and His instructions for living (Torah) the way Yeshua and His disciples used to, which is how they expected Gentiles converting to Nazarene Judaism were to do as well, Acts 15:21.

    The Hebrew Yeshua or the Aramaic Yesu would have sounded to the Greeks as Iesous but this was the Hebrew spoken at the time of Yeshua. Of course all languages suffer changes through the years and we also see this in the Hebrew. The Hebrew used when Moshe was around was Paleo or ancient Hebrew, not the modern one that basically uses the Aramaic alphabet.

    I can’t seem to be able to copy the many images of the pictographs showing the Paleo Hebrew name. Here is a web site that has SOME of it but there are many on the web. I also have my own Paleo Hebrew chart and book that confirms this. Sorry you won’t accept it, maybe is not for you at this time.

    http://whygodreallyexists.com/archives/the-ancient-hebrew-name-for-god-contains-the-message-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ

    More images for paleo hebrew yeshua video

    Like

  253. Doc says:

    I’m sorry but your paleo chart’s 22 characters do not produce these words/sounds. there were no vowels in the paleo chart you speak of.
    So where did you get the translation, really? It’s not verbatim from any ancient texts in hebrew.
    and in fact there is a previous chart, the one from 6000 to 10000 years ago that precedes the paleo chart and is the oldest/original one used by the Hebrews/Jews.
    it’s called the early alphabet, still 22 characters.
    see how they differ as time goes on? same as the meanings changed by ‘mankind’.

    You keep posting about a document that is not as old as the one I use and as I said we must go back as far as possible and get the ‘ancient’ docs to prove up a point.

    Here is a graph showing the many different progressions of the Hebrew alphabet as you call it.

    Where does yours fit? I see it fitting in the middle group, not the early group. It might even fit the late group.

    Now when you look at this chart, assuming you agree that this is the chart for all Hebrew alphabets, send me your hebrew sentences in original character form and I’ll compare them to the link I have sent you. Then we will know which time frame was used.

    This is really hebrew 101.
    CYa
    be safe

    Like

  254. Doc says:

    I forgot to add, you and others keep citing new testament information and avoid using the Jewish Word or what the christians call the old testament, but for what reason I cannot understand.
    You cannot use documents gathered and assembled by Constantine @ 325/328 AD at the first council of Nicaea and claim they are ‘ancient’.
    They are at best, copies of copies of copies; translated and translated and translated over hundreds of years by humans. Humans that changed much of the old texts into new age thinking as was directed by the Vatican and the Hierarchy of England.
    The Roman Catholic Church Encyclopedia will state this fact.

    Give it a look see and yes get the oldest one around, one certified by the vatican as being the RCC encyclopedia they reference. Lots of re-dos that are not Vatican sourced. 1907 to 1912 are all out there.
    All by the same author’s
    Anything claimed to be a RCC encyclopedia from later times would be suspect.

    5 persons were in charge of these original encyclopedias with Herberman being the chief editor.

    CYa

    Like

  255. Scott says:

    Doc,

    You continue the same drum beat – bashing the New Testament. Yet there is a lot of evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament documents dating back to just after the time of Christ that you just do not accept. Anyone who reads this entire blog can see the back and forth discussions we’ve had on that topic. You are free to not accept it, but you do so by ignoring scientifically proven evidence that the documents we have have been quite accurately reproduced from copies dating back to times less than a hundred years from when Christ lived. And generally speaking, there is more hard evidence backing up the authenticity of the New Testament books than the Old Testament books.

    Are the New Testament texts “ancient” compared to the Old Testament? No. And I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that they are. But you keep throwing the entire lot out as completely irrelevant and “changed”, claiming “copies of copies” etc, when it has been scientifically proven that they have been copied and translated quite accurately from the earliest copies that have been found, some dating back to before 100AD. (I remember – you reject the dating method used to determine the age of the parchments, as well as the methods used for determining the accuracy of the copies.) You are free to reject the message of the books and you are free to not accept the science behind the evidence. But when you reject the science, you will most likely continue to be challenged.

    “They are at best, copies of copies; translated and translated and translated over hundreds of years by humans.”

    So, do you have an original Torah (or whatever you want to call it) signed by Moses (or Moshe if you prefer) himself? Or could it possibly be a copy of a copy? Maybe even translated? Or are you going to say that your copies of the “ancient” texts are better than our copies of the not-so-ancient texts because they were copied in such a way that prevented any possible errors to have occurred, and that the process used to preserve your ancient texts could not have possibly been used on the not-so-ancient texts of the New Testament? (My opinion: If God is big enough to watch over a process to ensure the accuracy of copying the Old Testament texts, then I would believe that he is also be big enough to watch over the process to ensure the accuracy of the New Testament texts… if that is his will… I’m just sayin’…)

    Also, throughout this blog you appear to have no real appreciation for the Roman Catholic Church compiling the texts for the New Testament. Yet you frequently quote them and give them lots of credit when it serves your purposes like the following:

    “The Roman Catholic Church Encyclopedia will state this fact.”
    and
    “…one certified by the Vatican as being the RCC encyclopedia they reference.”

    On the one hand you have been very critical of them for the New Testament – a contrived “man made” document in your words; yet you cite them for authority and authentication whenever it suites you. Personally, I try not to bolster my arguments from organizations that I have general disagreements with. I would find better or different sources if I were you.

    Or maybe I just completely missed the point of your latest post, getting side tracked on a tangent…
    🙂

    Like

  256. Doc says:

    Look Scott, if it takes that much verbiage to respond to a simple statement of fact then we’ll never get anywhere.

    I’ve given you more than enough hard facts to support my position and if you believe any of the are not accurate please give me which ones they are and I’ll support them to the fullest possible level.

    But you have to do the same.

    Since historically all, and I mean all theologians agree that the first bible was indeed created/assembled/written at the first council of Nicaea you have to understand that your claims and those of others about ancient documents, where in fact you cannot deliver any of these ‘ancient texts’ causes a collapse in the foundation of christianity.

    If you know of an earlier time a bible was created and can show proof of such, as I have, then please state it and I’ll take the time to look it up.

    You can believe anything. It’s your right.

    But when people start saying (for example) the gospels were written by the 4 noted apostles while even the Vatican states they know this is not the case, however, they still consider them inspired by God; or, when they claim the word ‘virgin’ is in the original texts, when it’s not. It’s ‘young girl’. Then everything that is spoken to support that foundation comes under scrutiny.

    I’m a believer in God, that’s all.

    Christianity is falling apart as are all man made religions. You only need God.
    CYa

    Like

  257. Doc says:

    Scott,
    As for my use of the RCC encyclopedia.
    You are smart enough to know that if the greatest source of all christian documents in the known world state that the gospels are not written by the 4 noted apostles then they were not the authors. End of discussion unless you have more knowledge than the RCC.

    Noting the RCC as a source is not a weakness in my argument. It is your attempt to move the spotlight from the facts on the screen to some other issue to take attention off the meat and potatoes of this blog’s many questions.

    I wish you well but you gotta support your argument with ancient docs, not some man made religion created or assembled in the 4th century.

    I try to ask for something to look up, something ancient, say from 0 AD to 50 AD, something verifiable and nothing ever comes my way. Criticizing me or my position without any supporting documents from antiquity can never get a foothold. I am never provided anything, ever.

    Even this last back and forth about the Hebrew alphabet fell apart on the person making the claims against my statements. Did they not do any research?

    Not even the Romans wrote about Jesus like the christians do and the Romans were there first hand.

    CYa
    Be nice

    Like

  258. Shoshana says:

    Thanks for including the chart I was trying to copy. Its just like the one I have at home. Really they are all pretty much the same. I assure you I did not make any of them. They are available as laminated charts or in books or just Google them, no biggie.

    The name YHVH originally had no vowels, the same as all original Hebrew including ancient or Paleo Hebrew. So no, I only included the four letters of YHVH, which is what is in Torah when Moshe asks Yeshua His name. Written in either ancient or Paleo Hebrew those four consonants yield the meaning ” behold the hand behold the nail”. This meaning is solely based in the meaning each of those consonants have in ancient or Paleo Henrew. Check it out in the chart you enclosed.

    Like

  259. Doc says:

    I have checked it out with some Jewish friends and not it does not mean that.
    It is one, only one, of the many ancient names used for God.

    Now I’ll let you set me straight, teach me something here if you’d like?

    I ask AGAIN to have you send me a link that provides what you claim to be the meaning of YHVH as you stated in an earlier post.

    I’ll look it up as I said I would and give you feedback.
    I’ve gotten nothing yet from you.

    BUT:
    If you send me some individuals rendition of YHVH that has no supporting evidence nor any ancient texts to support their findings then you’ll just be found wrong again. Opinions are like other parts of the body. Everyone has at least one of them.

    Remember I have always said, just because someone claims they can read the ancient texts does not mean they actually can.

    It takes a very learned person with decades of experience to read verbatim text and if the source you would hopefully send me is not in a verbatim state, then all you can send me is what I have a real hard time with and that is;
    “someone elses opinion or translation trying to be force fed to the populous as fact.”

    This would mean nothing since anyone can have an opinion and that is fine.
    It’s just not facts.

    IF your statement is fact, what you say about the meaning of YHVH, send me the link, PLEASE. I will respond honestly. I only expect you to do the same.

    Here is one, only one of many sites that can give you a definition of each of the 22 characters of the Hebrew/Jewish alphabet (so we are calling it). Please read the entire article before heading to the characters.

    http://www.abarim-publications.com/Hebrew_Alphabet_Meaning.html#.V-sI6iRRIxM

    This does not trump any other explanation or definition.
    It is simply one that can be read over and then if one were to apply some known verbatim documents to it one could make some sense out of what was being said.
    Won’t be perfect, but will be generally acceptable.
    Remember as i have said from day one, these have multiple meanings so reading a sentence takes experience and knowing the general time frame the document was written (based on the writing style) to get the most accurate explanation.

    Doc
    CYa
    Be nice

    Like

  260. Shoshana says:

    Doc something else, you keep asking for ancient documents as if there were books back then. You know scrolls were hand written and costly and not that many Recently they found some new fragments in Israel but that is all they are, fragments. On top of it the Roman imperialists burned many of what little writings there were so is not as if there are that many left.

    Like

  261. Doc says:

    Believe me when I tell you that the Jews and the RCC have so many ancient documents that they will not let the public see or touch that it would fill the Smithsonian Institute. They may not go back to 11000 BC but the Jews were a very documented group of tribes. First they used tins to create stories on, then parchment, then papyrus and so on.
    Hebrew/Jewish life is as it was 10000 years ago in terms of their beliefs.

    The Jews hide these documents from the worlds eyes, because they are fearful that someone would destroy their heritage.
    The christians hide these documents from the worlds eyes because they know there are many things ‘bad people’ did to create this man made religion centuries ago to control people, to make people fear God instead of loving Him, to make people hate others that are different when in fact God made us all different (like snowflakes, no two are alike).

    People forget, the Jesus was a Jew. He was not a Christian. This always makes me wonder why people don’t understand the absurdity this creates in explaining christianity. If it was such a wonderful man made religion, why did not Jesus convert? We know he did not and was per stories told died as the king of the Jews.

    Do you even realize the RCC and the Church of England’s hierarchy led a ‘Crusade’ throughout the known world with the banner ‘ Convert or Die’?
    Guess who else does this, today? ISIS.

    Guess who had the Knights Templar murdered, the Vatican and the King due to the Templar’s being so wealthy and the King and the Pope owing so much money to them. Look it up please before just jumping in and claiming I am nuts.

    There are so many evil deeds that the christian church of yester-years did including the witch hunts here in the early colonies based on greed and power that you’d choke on the testimonials if you were allowed to read them or if you know someone that can sit with you and detail what happened throughout the past 1500 to 1700 years within the walls of the christian community.

    Just give it all to God and he’ll take care of you, I promise. Because he said so.

    You don’t need a man made religion to love God or be saved by anyone else that God because God said this in the Book of Hosea. Look it up. It’s a good read.

    CYa
    be nice

    Like

  262. Shoshana says:

    Doc what link do you need? That is like asking for a link for 2+2=4
    Just check the pictograph/ letters that you posted. There is no mystery about it. Please you tell me according to the Paleo Hebrew chart you brought:
    Y=
    H=
    V=
    H=

    Shalom
    PS I am not a christian and don’t follow man- made religions

    Like

  263. Doc says:

    Well I have sent you the definition of each of the Hebrew symbols. All 22 of them. And in 4 different time lines.
    I don’t see the words you claim YHVH means anywhere in the definitions.
    What else can I say?

    Point is, the characters YHVH do not exist in the chart. Never have. Didn’t you know this?

    Your YHVH are translations from hebrew to an english style of language you are trying to use. It doesn’t work like that in the science of languages. These are man made statements/letters/characters that are not found in the hebrew alphabet.

    Now. Again. Go back to where you got this information, since it is not on the chart, and send me the link so I can look it up and do some research. Can you do that?

    Your statement that YHVH means ‘……………….’ is not supported because they do not exist in the Hebrew alphabet which is what I have been trying to explain.

    Even the meaning you claim that YHVH means is not to be found in any of the Hebrew definitions. Where did you get your info? Please send me a link?

    Reading hebrew ancient texts is different than reading english, it’s many times different.

    Send me your link. I’ve sent you mine. Until you can provide me with a link then there is nothing more I can say because they YHVH does not exist in the Hebrew alphabet. You were given a copy of the alphabet and their meanings. Now show me yours?

    Cya
    Be nice

    Like

  264. Scott says:

    Look Doc, talking about me using a lot of “verbiage to respond to a simple statement of fact” is like the pot calling the kettle black. It takes this much verbiage because you never concede even obvious points. And you ain’t seen nothing yet…

    So, Pot… you state that you’ve given me more than enough “hard facts” to support your position. I’m sorry, but it does not appear so. Below is a list of your posts in this blog with the sources you have referenced:
    As “TEX” July 15 2015: none
    As “Stephen” in January of 2016:
    7th: RCC
    8th: RCC, SabbathCovenant.com, Vatileaks.com
    9th: RCC
    10th: RCC, Vatilinks.com
    12th & 13th: RCC
    16th: RCC (Notable quote: “It’s like taking a criminal’s word for something another criminal said. Why would anyone listen to evidence from another criminal?”)
    17th: none
    19th: YouTube Video
    20th & 21st: RCC
    22nd: RCC, Papyrus of Ani
    23rd: RCC
    (as “Doc”)
    26th & 29th: RCC
    30th: RCC, a YouTube video (same one), SabbathCovenant.com
    Feb 2016:
    2nd: RCC, Bibliotecapleyades.net, Pope Leo X, Cardinal Bembo
    3rd: none
    4th & 5th: RCC
    June 2016:
    15th & 16th: RCC
    17th: Blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com
    July 22, 2016: RCC
    August 2016: 18th and 25th: none
    September 2016:
    10th: none (Notable quote: ” Christians are a silly bunch at times, making up stuff that just does not exist.”)
    13th: RCC
    26th & 27th: none
    28th: RCC

    Hands down you source the RCC more than anything else. So admit it, you’re actually a RCC bishop who is trying to gain more converts to the RCC… Or maybe you’re actually the Pope himself?!?! 😉

    You wrote: “I wish you well but you gotta support your arguments with ancient docs, not some man made religion…”

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that you probably do not have “ancient docs” of your own. Neither do I. So I cannot just drive over and compare our “ancient docs.” What we both have to rely on is the work of hopefully reliable and reputable people. So below are a few links that deal with the age, quality, quantity, and authenticity of the historic documents that make up the NT documents (along with other old documents for some comparisons). This is only dealing with one topic: Your continued regurgitation of the propaganda that the RCC somehow “invented” the Bible in their diabolical scheme to control the masses. We have already agreed that at the 325AD council they collected and collated various writings into a book form that we basically recognize as our current Bible (although the Catholic Bibles have more books in theirs than we have in ours…). But they did not “write” nor “invent” nor “severely alter” the original texts. Because if they had, it would have been obvious then when compared to all the copies in existence at the time, and it would be obvious now as we have thousands of old documents to compare against, some that date well before the compilation of the “Bible.” Your argument simply does not stand up – no matter what the RCC states. But you are free to ignore the evidence revealed in these sites… as well as others.

    http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
    https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
    http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/originalbooks.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Beatty_Papyri
    http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible.aspx

    I’m sure you already know about these links and you may find a few things that appear to support your point of view to some degree. But overall, they basically rebuff your repetitive argument about the authenticity of the NT, especially in contrast to virtually all other ‘ancient’ documents. You may ignore and denigrate these – that is your prerogative. But I post these here so that other readers of this blog can read them and make up their own minds. NOTE: I am arguing about the historical authenticity of the documents that make up the NT, not the content of the documents – yes, those are two separate things. You don’t believe the content so that argument is not on the table. I’m not asking you to “believe” in Jesus or any such thing.

    You also wrote: “I try to ask for something to look up, something ancient…”, “I am never provided anything, ever.” As for the “something ancient”, since none of us (that I am aware of) have any actual “ancient documents” in our possession, again we have to defer to the work of others in this field who are – again – hopefully reliable and trustworthy. But your statement “I am never provided anything, ever” is simply not true (misstatement? old age kicking in? Too much sacramental wine?) Unklee gave you: a link on Jan 12th and 13th 2016; 6 links on January 30th; 3 links on Feb 1st, several links on Feb 2nd; and 5 links on June 16th. (This is all verifiable in this blog.) You may not agree with any of the links, but to state that you are “never provided anything, ever” is simply not true.

    And to state that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, is simply silly. Of course Jesus was not a Christian. Since “Christian” simply means a “follower of the Christ” (and was originally coined by NON-Christians to be a derogatory term), would Christ have been a follower of himself? Logic would dictate: No. Was Buddha a Buddhist? No. He was Buddha – his followers are Buddhists. I don’t know what “Christians” you associate with or where you get your information, but the ones I associate with know that Jesus – by definition – could not have been a Christian. (… hitting the sacramental wine again??? )

    If there was an organization that through deception and corruption produced something that was designed to control and obfuscate the masses, the outcome of which I attributed to many atrocities throughout the past couple millennia, as you view what the RCC has done in “creating” the Bible, Christianity, and the Church and the evils that have been perpetrated on mankind in the name of these things (all based on your 28 September 2016 post at 7:31am), I would not be so eager to defend them as a reliable source in anything, but would find other more reputable resources to cite. As you stated on January 16th, 2016: “It’s like taking a criminal’s word for something another criminal said. Why would anyone listen to evidence from another criminal?” Not completely in context but the overall sentiment is there. THAT is why I harp on you citing the RCC. You have obvious disdain and contempt for them for what they have done in your estimation. Yet, you hold them as the Krugerrand standard of reliable information involving ancient documents and authenticity. You are free to continue to hold them as a reliable and reputable source, but in my world, this would be lunacy.

    BOTTOM LINE: (Finally!) I do not care what you believe or who you believe in. That is your business – between you and God. I do not care that you do not believe the NT is God’s word. I do not care if you dislike the RCC. I do not care if you love the OT (your version) and hold it up as your gold standard. I do not care if you do not believe that Jesus ever existed, let alone that he could be the savior. As I’ve said before, I care about Truth. When you state things as facts that are easily and verifiably false (at least in the way that some of us look at the information), I challenge you on that.

    And now you may chastise me again for being overly verbose, or being smart enough to know better, or for having bad information, etc.

    Kettle

    Like

  265. Shoshana says:

    Doc as I pointed out you sent me the SAME Paleo Hebrew letter charts I have. None of those letters yield a SENTENCE instead they each yield a word. As you can see in the chart each of those letters had an ancient or Paleo Hebrew representation which changed over the years till eventually became the modern YHVH. There is no way around it, YHVH means what it means in its Ancient or Paleo Hebrew form with each letter yielding a word thus the 4 words:

    H=behold
    V=hand
    H=behold
    Y=nail

    Like

  266. Shoshana says:

    Sorry I transported two letter should be:
    H=behold
    V= nail
    H=behold
    Y= hand

    Here is a link I just got for you, is short and simple. As I said earlier I get my info as the Ruach reveals it when I read the word, THEN I go for confirmation. This revelation came long time ago. The moniker for christian is more recent. Christians were around long before Yeshua came to minister as Second Adam, it was the Roman church that created the confusion. The followers of Yeshua continued as Jews following Torah but not necessarily following any of the man-made laws followed by the 7 different branches of the Pharisees or of the Sadducees, etc.That is why they expected new convert to go to SYNAGOGUES on Yahveh’s eternal Sabbath, rather than some church on sun day.

    Like

  267. Doc says:

    Well like the Grateful Dead sung, ‘it’s been a long strange trip’ we’ve been on.

    I have sent you some evidence regarding the speaking of YHVH and it seems to continue to go unanswered, which is okay. It seems to have sparked a fire which is good for learning but bad if it creates animosity between people I assume we are both trying to learn/understand? My apology if I made you angry at me.

    I appreciate the efforts in sending me your supporting evidence as well.
    I have gone over every link in the past sent me and none have any theological or scientific proof behind them. As you once noted I had not believed in scientific proof, there is none. This is a very important part of this discussion, proof.

    Everything has to have proof especially when it directs a person away from God as their true Savior and instead inserts another entity as Savior. Risky business according to the Book of Hosea. Again, your choice.

    When people make claims like yours regarding YHVH and it is not found as in this case in the Hebrew Alphabet, it’s something I challenge. The entire NT and it’s many anchoring points such as a ‘virgin’ birth, the use of the word ‘angel’ instead of messenger are all indicators intentional lies. These things were written much much later than I was told as a child in Catholic school and was preached/taught by the RCC for 1700 years or so. They were just non-truths. These statements are not in any document that predates 325 AD. They were created at/during the first ecumenical counsel. If you read more about the scribes and their transcriptions you’d see what I’m talking about. They are not verbatim translations. I wish you understood this. I ask for any document that can be offered up and none exist. But still I seem to piss people off by asking for them. I do apologize for my questions.

    Yes the many Jews I know do in fact have and share with me texts from long before the christian texts that are used in the NT. And as stated, a verbatim translation is nothing like the claimed statements that you have made here. Nothing alike at all. Please go see one and read it and then compare it to how you have spoken or stated what/how they are read? The Greeks translated the Jewish Torah. Do you really believe it is/was a verbatim translation?

    Here is a link: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

    Now this is an interlinear of the Hebrew Bible. It’s not a verbatim translation but will show some of the choppy sentences and incomplete phrases that existed. If one were to limit it to the Hebrew Alphabet and removed any spaces or vowels and so on that we know were not part of this language it would be even harder to work with.

    Here is an example of a text that has been shown to not be a verbatim translation yet people believe it is just that, until they are schooled.

    “The Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the most iconic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet it does not reflect the original language of the Bible. Tov calls it “a classroom example of what an inferior text looks like, with its manifold contextual changes, harmonization’s, grammatical adaptions, etc.” Photo: John C. Trevor, Ph.D. Digital Image: James E. Trevor.”

    How can we learn or teach if we use non-truthful man made texts? And did not God warn us about changing his words when teaching about Him?

    Sorry for my multi pen names, when I’m blogging on different sites I do use different signatures so I can keep up with what and where I am posting. I err many times. My email address is nonetheless the very same, always.
    Does that matter? It seems to, to you. Was there a specific point to be made?

    Don’t like to be involved in disputes where I may have gotten someone riled up so I apologize. I’m an eager to learn poster so I may not let go of that proverbial bone and run it too far into the ground. After 65 years of a blessed life I still have the urgency to learn. Should go back to college I guess.

    Anyway, it’s been interesting to say the least. Never meant to injure anyone’s feelings and believing what you want is your right.

    I just like learning things and challenging people in their beliefs to see ‘why’ is a big part of it.

    If you ever go through the Hebrew alphabet and find your statement regarding the YHVH I’d love to see it. I could not find it anywhere in the definitions of the alphabet characters I sent you. I don’t mind being wrong, just need the proof.

    CYa
    Be Nice

    Like

  268. Scott says:

    Doc, Sorry if I come across as pissed off. I am not. But I am just as dogged as you are at holding onto a bone.

    By the way, the YHVH thing is between you and Shoshana, not me.

    I also don’t care that you have used multiple pen names. I was just noting it for the record so if people looked back through the blog, they could find what I was referencing.

    I am laser beamingly (is that even a word???) focused on ONE issue right now: Your continued and repeated accusation that the RCC created the NT in 325AD to intentionally mislead the people. You recently stated it again in your comment to Shoshana on 9/27:

    “They are at best, copies of copies of copies; translated and translated and translated over hundreds of years by humans. Humans that changed much of the old texts into new age thinking as was directed by the Vatican and the Hierachy of England. The Roman Catholic Church Encyclopedia will state this fact.”

    Your argument, as I understand it, is either the 325AD council created the NT for their own nefarious purposes, or they could have taken existing texts and made substantive alterations at that time (and probably throughout the hundreds of years since then) bastardizing the original message of the various texts, again for their own nefarious purposes. You are basically stating that the NT that we have today is a compilation of either created or altered documents designed to control and manipulate the masses. And that changes kept occurring over the hundreds of years since, so that what we have today is nothing like what the original texts might have been.

    At the time, the RCC may have indeed directed changes to be made to the documents that went into their NT. But I’m saying categorically, that if ANY texts that appear in the NT can be VERIFIED to have been in existence long before the 325AD council, and if such documents exist today, then they can be compared to our current-day NT for accuracy in translation to see if, indeed, they have been altered in any meaningful way.

    The websites I have cited are compilations of many professional people doing this work in these areas to prove within acceptable scientific standards whether or not the NT as we have it today can be trusted to be accurate back to texts found to have existed previous to the 325AD council. Their findings conclude that what we have today is adequately accurate to the messages found in the earliest documents, many existing prior to the 325AD council.

    You may completely disagree with the NT message – that is your prerogative and that is a bone I will give you. But disparaging the NT on the grounds it has been substantively altered over the past nearly 2,000 years, that our current NT is somehow not adequately accurate to the original texts that existed previous to the 325AD council is simply not true. Unless, of course, you do not accept the work of many professional people working on these projects under scientific scrutiny and pier review, and only accept the words of the RCC, the very organization you blame for the corruption of the original texts with the conspiracy to manipulate and control the people.

    (A direct word-for-word translation is not my argument here, nor is any discussion of the OT. Those would be a topics for other vigorous and verbose discussions.)

    Do you want to hold onto the words of the RCC over the work of hundreds of other people who have examined mountains of evidence and whose conclusions are directly opposed to yours? Or will you, sir, relinquish this one bone?

    Like

  269. Doc says:

    I can only say that the RCC, the oldest christian establishment, the largest christian establishment, the foundation of the christian belief system claiming it’s roots all the way back to the apostles as being their first pope and cardinals, the christian establishment with more documents than any other entity on earth has conceded these things.
    I did not make them up.
    And it was quite hard to uncover them.

    I’m not certain if they fessed up to create commotion, finally felt they had to tell the truth because they were outed by other theologians that studied all the man made religions or what?
    I also don’t have a problem with your beliefs or anyone else holding their own beliefs close to the vest.

    I remain constant in my beliefs that a person only needs to live an honest and good life to be saved.
    No one requires to be saved by the Jesus.
    Only God can save one’s soul, since he says so.

    It’s just one of those things that gets caught in the cogs and slows things down till they get unstuck.

    I’d be happier than a monkey with a cookie jar to find one way or the other with final all credible proof for everyone to accept but humans are not like that.
    They seem to hold on to what serves them best.
    I have no particular need for this topic/conversation to end or continue.
    It’s just a conversation.
    No harm no foul. We just disagree.

    *****************
    I will ask one thing of you. Since nothing has, it seems, been resolved regarding the word/name YHVH.

    This will give me some indication into what/where your info may come from and or how you process it. I do like learning. But you don’t have to do it.

    Go over the Hebrew alphabet and read the definitions that were provided to you or even go to a different legitimate source and read their definitions?

    I ask because this one thorn started with the translation you provided for YHVH.
    If you’d give it a go and send me to that link you used I’d appreciate it much.
    Learn something every day is what I always say.

    If not so be it.
    I’ll move on with whatever the next topic is that gets forwarded to me and respond accordingly. This bone seems to be cleaned as if meal worms had a feast.

    CYa
    Be extra nice! LOL
    Doc

    Like

  270. Scott says:

    Doc,

    Thanks for your response! I think your first paragraph above highlighted a few things that might be at the core of why we are such odds at times. So I’m going to try and respond to 4 statements in your first paragraph above and see where we can go from there. Maybe we can loosen a cog or two… 🙂

    Firstly, you say the RCC is “the oldest christian establishment”. I will give you this bone with one modification – I would say “the RCC is the oldest christian-BASED establishment.” I do not recognize the RCC as the embodiment of Christianity, nor as Christianity’s spokesperson or official church. They certainly USE Christianity as their base and started out there, but they have wandered FAR from Christianity’s roots over the past 2,000 years. My position on your first statement is, while Catholics have their base in Christianity, Christianity is NOT the same as Catholicism. I don’t care what “the world” or the RCC says, this is my belief as well as most of the people I associate with. Please let me know if you can accept this, that the RCC is the oldest christian-BASED establishment.

    Secondly, you stated the RCC is “the largest christian establishment”. I have to refer to my previous point. I will concede they are “the largest christian-BASED establishment.” But once again, I draw a sharp distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. Will you allow for this slight alteration as well?

    Thirdly, you stated the RCC is “the foundation of the christian belief system.” Here we part company entirely. They are NOT the foundation of the Christian belief system for me or anyone I know except Catholics. They EMPLOYED the Christian belief system as part of their doctrine, calling it Christianity. But actual Christianity and Catholicism are NOT the same. This is why I stated in the previous two parts “christian-BASED.” Anyone who says Catholicism IS Christianity is woefully misinformed. I do understand WHY you would believe this, but it is not true. Catholicism was built on TOP of Christianity, using Christianity as its base and starting point, but went way, way away from its roots. Can you accept that Christianity is NOT Catholicism and Catholicism is NOT Christianity?

    Fourthly, you stated the RCC “claiming its roots all the way back to the apostles.” ALL people who call themselves Christians can claim this, because Christianity started during the time of the Apostles. The RCC did not INVENT Christianity. MY Christian roots go all the way back to the Apostles. But I am not, and have never been Catholic. The Catholics use this as a way to legitimize their standing and authority, trying to claim they were the first ones in the whole Christian movement, that Peter was their first pope, and that he is the only one that anyone who wants to be a Christian should follow. And I’m sure they have documents that show all this. However, in the New Testament (NT), the document the RCC is supposed to have have invented and that you reject, there is NO support that Peter was the first pope, a bishop, or anything of the sort. But there is evidence to the CONTRARY. In fact, a lot of what the Catholics have taught through the years is NOT supported in this document they supposedly invented. You would think that if an organization is going to go through the trouble of inventing a document to support their man-made religion, they would at least write it in such a way to support their core tenants. And, yes, I know that they have internal documents showing how the NT supports their beliefs, etc. But one only has to study the NT for themself to see the large gaping holes in many of their teachings in contrast to the NT.

    Doc, I know these things probably go against what you were taught for decades. I know you have already rejected a lot of what the RCC has taught and stood for. Let’s discuss these 4 items above and see where we go… maybe they are also a little different than what you were taught? 🙂

    Like

  271. Doc says:

    I’m not in opposition to any of your points for the most part.
    The 4 issues are actually non issues for me. I’m kinda happy with myself.

    First: Catholicism claims it is the foundation for christianity and for some reason the world view is such. I don’t believe they have any special connection to God. They are just another man made religion. It is however the holders/creators of almost all acknowledged christian works. They may be wrong, and I feel they are wrong, but they have had the big rope to pull for @ 1700 years and no one seems to buck them. Big dog on the porch is usually not pestered it seems. But no, they have nothing special for me to consider them as being special. They are though the benchmark, the gold standard for christianity worldwide even if you and I don’t believe they deserve it. I do not believe they deserve it.

    Second:
    No argument with this at all. Potato pattatta. 6 of one half a dozen of another.

    Third:
    Catholicism is indeed christianity simply because their entire system is based on the Jesus being the son of God and the savior. It’s the oldest as well. If you are not saved by the Jesus you cannot experience life everlasting nor God’s eternal happiness per the RCC.
    Christianity is the very same. Jesus is the foundation of its beliefs. Believe or go to hell. Islam teaches this same thought process but only applies it to Allah or God.
    At least they have the right entity they are praying to. Too bad they are psychos.
    Son of God? I’m a child of God and I’m a male. I’m a son of God no matter how that irritates christians and boy it does, when they hear me say it.
    Jesus – The Christ – Christianity – It is all connected and cannot be divided.
    If there is no Jesus as he is told to have been, then christianity collapses.
    This is why the RCC works so hard in trying to bolster their position instead of just saying, ‘Hey, God. We accept you as our savior because you said so. Sorry we got off on a tangent with that Jesus thing. We’re back and sorry.’
    I believe the RCC/Christianity is just bunk. God is the only savior simply because he said so in the Book of Hosea. So the Jesus cannot be the savior or one must turn his back on God. Said this many times. One has to be careful of their choices and make the right one. There is no room in heaven for ‘oops, I didn’t know’. God judges us not only on our actions but more so on the intent of our actions.

    Was there a Jesus, I don’t doubt there were many very special people in the past that came about via the roots of the Hebrews/Jews. Was one Jesus? I don’t know, I was not there and still there is nothing scientific to prove or disprove a person existed. Same problem atheists have with God. Can’t prove he was or was not. You just have to believe in something or you’ll fall for anything IMHO. Besides Jesus whomever he was, if he existed, was a Jew, not a christian. To follow in the Jesus’ footsteps one would have to follow the Jewish way of life it would seem?

    Fourth:
    I never agreed with the RCC nor with any christian group making claims that their roots went all the way back to 1AD. No one can do this except as a farce. There are no connections to that time period nor are there any documents that connect today with then. Mankind has a huge ego and has to feed it. Religion was a way to control people. Has been from the very first of pagan gods. The god is good, the god is great, take a knee, thank the god, sacrifice your best lamb for the god, yadda yadda yadda. All man made up information. Book of Amos tells us all what God thinks about organized religion and this includes and was specifically pointed at the Hebrews/Jews! So chrstianity has no possibility of pleasing God either. Only our actions, the way we spend our lives here. How much good we do vs how much bad we do. It’s simple. What did he say? All I want is a flow of justice and righteousness throughout my world? Pretty simple to do once you dump all the man made religions and just be good people.

    CYa
    Looks like we are not arguing over these four items as much as one might think.
    Doc

    Like

  272. Scott says:

    Great!

    I think the following sums up our areas of agreement so far:

    #1 The RCC is the oldest Christian-BASED establishment. – agreed
    #2 The RCC is the largest Christian-BASED establishment. – agreed
    #3 Christianity is NOT Catholicism and Catholicism is NOT Christianity – Not agreed.
    #4 The RCC (as do all Christians) claim their roots go back to the Apostles. – basically ambivalent – really doesn’t matter what people claim.

    So we don’t see eye-to-eye on #3. I see Catholicism and Christianity as two separate but related ideas. You seem to see them identically. (Here you went off into the woods a bit by talking about Jesus, salvation, savior, etc.) I just want to focus on this: can you see any way to separate out one belief from another(regardless whether or not you believe in the belief systems)? Do you see Buddhists the same as Islamists? I’m assuming you do not agree with either belief systems, so are they the same thing to you?

    Would you say that GM is the same as Chevy? Would you say the Chevy is the same as GM? The answer I hope you have is “no”. One (Chevy) is BASED on GM, but they are their own entity, albeit in this case, Chevy is a subsidiary of GM. In the same way the Catholics are a subsidiary of Christianity, but Christianity does not OWN Catholicism – it is its own beast.

    Only focusing on two separate belief systems, can you, in your mind, believe that there are those of us who have a completely different belief system that is NOT Catholic but still based on similar PRINCIPLES? (GM and Chevys all have wheels, engines, windows, seats, etc., but I’m saying they are two different companies, albeit related. This may be a bad example, so maybe you can come up with a better one?) Maybe Catholicism is a FLAVOR of Christianity?

    Like

  273. Doc says:

    I don’t see christianity and RCC as identical. There are many different sects of christianity (as my first post, 40k different sects of christianity, was in regard to when I came upon this blog) that do not agree with the RCC. One claims that 3 dimensional statues are pagan based and a sin, since some christians pray before statues and they claim this is worshiping a pagan god. BS for certain but not RCC or standard Christianity. So there are many many different veins of christianity. Why I say they are all connected is that they all claim to have the Jesus as their center tent post. Without him there is no christianity it seems to me and the circus tent will fall. It is a circus to me. Quite humorous when you look at it without rose colored glasses.

    Not all religions are the same in their teachings. However all religions are the same. They are man made. That’s the one thing they cannot escape. So they are all incorrect or they all have to be correct since none have an upper hand on any of the others and none trump God. No one man made religion has God’s approval nor has his condoning of it’s being better than the rest. God does not need man made religions, people do it seems though. The book of Amos tells the story well.

    GM or Chevy. As I said in my earlier comment regarding religions; potato potatto, 6 of one, half a dozen of another. They are all the same yet they are all teaching a different class about the same subject. This is the biggest self destroying issue for all man made religions. None are correct yet each tells the others that it’s our way or the highway to hell. Not a good thing to teach. God was very specific when he warned people about changing his word. And christianity, along with all other man made religions has done just that. They have forgotten to simply pass on Gods words as the Hebrews/Jews did/do and have resorted to interpretation Gods words in whatever way suits them. I refer back to your YHVH statement and still would like a link to where you read such a meaning from it. No I am not digging at you, just interested in learning. You can feel free to send that link any time.

    It’s understandable that the 40k or so of different man made sects of christianity are different yet the same in many ways. As I have noted the one thing that connects all of them is the Jesus. Without it there is no christianity since it’s name is born of the Jesus.

    Regarding the Jesus, I never really understood why what are called ‘learned’ people in the religious world calling the Jesus, ‘Christ’. His name as historical (or hysterical) main stream christianity/RCC knows that if one were to read back far enough it is said his name was something like; Jesus of Nazareth from the House of David. Christ is an adjective not a noun nor his name. These little tid bits or lies as I call them are just more reason to question the many other lies such as virgin vs young girl, angel vs messenger. All this done by man to create a belief system to control people and not one single iota of blessings from God to do so. If people were only able to read the texts as they progressed through the past 1700 years they would be totally confused. Look at the first American Bible ever written was in 1663. Now you have to wonder what took place between 1663 and the First Ecumenical Council in 325/328 AD some 1300 years?

    People in the bible lied just as they do today. A small sample of this is:
    Abraham suppressed the truth about his wife, and declared she was his sister. Doesn’t matter why, a lie is a lie. Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, and made him believe he was Esau, and stole his blessing. I believe his father was blind at the time. So we humans are a very poor lot to be asking for Gods blessings via a man made religion.

    But will end it here before I digress.
    CYa

    Like

  274. Scott says:

    Doc,

    You are correct about Christianity in that it does center around Jesus (The Christ – hence the name Christianity). You are free to throw it all out.

    So, the NT as we have it today has been proven to have basically the same message as it did in 325AD and prior. I’m talking hard evidence. You just don’t like the message – you’re talking religion. That is fine with me. You are free to throw the entire thing out.

    Once again, the YHVH discussion is between you and Shoshana, not me. Even though both names start with the letter “S”, Shoshana is not me.

    Like

  275. Shoshana says:

    Doc you stated in a recent posting:
    “I remain constant in my beliefs that a person only needs to live an honest and good life to be saved. No one requires to be saved by the Jesus.”

    Actually there is a reason why his name is in fact SALVATION or Yeshua. He was born with DNA that was not mutated as Adam’s became after the fall. Unlike the first Adam, Yeshua as Second Adam kept his DNA intact. The adversary has from the start tried to change the DNA of the Eternal’s earthly creation and this hasn’t changed. In fact we see it accelerating, so that we live as in the days of Noah.

    According to Middle East ancient covenants we who enter into covenant believing/accepting Yeshua as our yeshua by faith receive the same perfect DNA protection. That is the mystery behind ‘eat my flesh (bread) and drink my blood (wine)’. Even though we don’t have it or see it now as our bodies are still in their present state, when He returns in the clouds as Moshiach Ben David we shall be like Him. Whatever was “clicked” off at the fall will be “clicked” back on. We will no longer be affected by time and space.

    Yeshua is the Tree of Life found both in the Garden and Revelation. When He died on a TREE (forget the cross) He took our curses upon Him; He paid the price of the bride as THE burnt offering OUTSIDE the camp, same as the red heifer did temporarily*. He essentially paid for the bride, for Eve’s transgression. He died as He had to do so for a number of reasons including marrying Israel (as He divorced her but once the former husband dies she is free to marry again).

    In Romans, written to the lost sheep of Israel or Ephraim, we see a discussion in chapter 11 about the natural OLIVE tree branches and the wild (without the cultivation of Torah) OLIVE tree branches. These are the 2 houses of Israel alluded to in many scriptures; Judah and Ephraim. The two branches of the olive tree unto which Yeshua was hung with a patibulum or cross bean He carried to the area the Romans imperialists saw as the main scene of the “crime”, right near the red heifer tabernacle at the top of the mount. He did so as Yeshua Ben Yosef, not as Yeshua Ben David. Many rabbis of old said Moshiach (not the same as a mere pagan christ or anointed one) would come twice, once as Moshiach Ben Yosef and once as Moshiach Ben David. Yeshua already fulfilled the spring feasts as Moshiach Ben Yosef and is about to fulfill the fall ones as Moshiach Ben David. His malakim or angels will rid the world of the tares and all chamas and will gather His people from the 4 corners of the earth to the Promised Land that Canaan stole from Seth long ago. That is the mass return of the Prodigal son when Yehuda in Israel will ask about the myriads of Abraham’s children and even get a little jealous.

    Yes, Gentiles have inherited falsehoods from their ancestors/parents as it is written, Jer 16:19. They need to stop eating all the food for pigs they have been consuming these years, do teshuvah, and start feeding on the word, the Eternal’s instructions or Torah thus walk in The Way. This is The Way spoken of in the Tanach that has been there since the start and won’t change.

    The RCC is responsible for a lot of amalgamation of pagan idolatry with the truth, including the use of the name ‘christian’, which were the pagan followers of Serapis Crestus. Much was changed after the destruction of the Temple and the ransacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. True, the RCC can be considered the ‘mother church’ from which the thousands of Christian denomination have suckled over the years, even though each has made changes. However, you can try to live an ‘honest and good life’ and that is very good but unless you have entered into covenant (Middle East style) with the ONLY ONE that has been interacting with man since the Garden, and accept what He did for you (“drinking his blood” and “eating His flesh”) as Second Adam you won’t have yeshua when He returns because your DNA will remain the same, that if you are still alive as according to Zec 14 only some nations will survive the great shaking that is about to take place.

    * “a special bridge was erected which led out from the eastern gate of the Holy Temple, and connected with the “Mount of Annointment” – that is the spot on the Mount of Olives, directly facing the gate and aligned with the entrance to the Sanctuary, where the purificatory process was conducted. A singular altar is erected at this spot. The heifer is bound to the altar with cords made from reed-grass, which do not become impure. It is placed on top of the wood arrangement with its head on the south side, and its face westward – towards the Temple”.
    http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/ceremony.htm

    Like

  276. Shoshana says:

    Oh Doc and just for the record here is one instance of yeshua (salvation) being used:
    Psalm 88 “O Yahweh, God of my salvation”= Yahveh Elohi yeshuati
    Shalom

    Like

  277. Scott says:

    Shosana, In case you haven’t noticed, Doc does not accept the NT, believes it was basically invented by the RCC to confuse and control the people. So quoting from it (your Romans 11 reference) is probably in vain. I have pointed out how the texts of the NT predate the RCC and can be proven, but he rejects it all, basically because it points to “Jesus” (Yeshua), not “God” for salvation. He does not accept Jesus’ claim that he and the Father are one… the same. Just food for thought.

    Like

  278. Doc says:

    Way too much info for a response regarding a simple alphabet and each characters meaning or definition.
    I’m going to assume, unless you point otherwise, that the alphabet that we both have does in fact not state what you had indicated regarding YHVH.
    I’m not picking at you. I’m just being really specific.

    First: The RCC and the Church of England and the ruling class did indeed via a pagan ruler and through writing the ‘then so called New Testament’ in 325/328 AD create a religion, a man made religion and called it christianity. I understand your not wanting to be associated with the RCC and would rather them not be associated with what is called christianity. I have no interest in being associated with them either and I was raised a Roman Catholic until I figured out christianity was a made up story. At least as it is told today.

    Next. You and almost every poster here can only quote from or list from or note from documents that are within the christian faith, the New Testament, a document created at the first council of Nicaea. No one can argue that the NT was not created at this meeting since it was given it’s name at that meeting and the Jewish Word was then refereed to as the OT from then on.
    There are no documents as I have stated and stated and stated that are from antiquity regarding christianity. But I ask you to prove me wrong. Nothing better than learning. Scott will tell you that the NT is based on old ancient texts and if that is true then we ought to get our hands on them to find out. If they are not available to have in hand or see on the screen of ones laptop then it is much like the RCC, just another story told and passed down throughout the ages.
    I only ask for a document to review to research and to have translated and see just how right or wrong I am. But I never get one from anyone.

    Next. All christian documents used today are from the Constantine Era. It’s because christians use the NT exclusively for their faith and the NT was created at the first council of Nicaea.
    Did they have other documents they worked from? Certainly.
    Are those documents here and available to review, no.
    They were for the most part destroyed at the end of the first council of Nicaea.
    The RCC did keep many that were borderline interesting though.

    Next. The gospels that you use today have been noted by all theologians that will provide proof to support their position, were not written (personally/by hand) by MMLJ. They were (lets call it rewritten) by priests of the RCC during this meeting at Nicaea and scripted to create the RCC’s new religion, christianity. (albeit a different christianity that yours is as Scott feels). And I have no reason to disagree with you and others and Scott having issues with the RCC. I left them because of the many lies I found later on had been taught to me.
    Nonetheless, as imperfect as the RCC is and has been, it is still the foundation for all christian beliefs even if one does not agree with all of them. As I have noted and people have forgotten, I joined this blog I believe when I first posted to the number of christian denominations.
    It’s really 40,000 plus even if others do not agree. Why? Because every stand along assembly like the Cowboy Church in the Meadow, The East New Jersey Church of Jesus, The Church of the Rock in Cambodia, and all the other names used which are either single stand alone churches or a larger system of churches do in fact total over 40,000.
    People here on this blog have no idea how many thousands of small village churches exist throughout the third worlds. It’s astounding what missionaries over the past several hundreds of years have created. There are indeed over 40k christian belief systems. Some alike in many ways, some different.

    Now I have no problem with any persons beliefs as long as they don’t use it to belittle someone or to control them or worse make claims that their religion is the only way to God, where in fact God has never said such a ridiculous thing.

    So live and let live. Believe and let believe. Be honest and expect honesty. When told a non truth, challenge it with a truth.

    CYa
    Doc

    Like

  279. Scott says:

    Doc,
    One thing at a time.
    Is the Amos, Hosea, or Isaiah that you use personally written by hand by each: Amos, Hosea and Isaiah?

    Like

  280. Scott says:

    Doc,

    Once again you state:

    “I only ask for a document to review to research and to have translated and see just how right or wrong I am. But I never get one from anyone.”

    I’m not trying to change your beliefs and this is not about religion. This is not about Jesus or any belief system. This is about historical accuracy of texts you claim have been bastardized. The NT texts can be traced back fairly reliably to times previous to the 325/328AD council that you like to refer to so religiously. Which means the texts we have today can be compared to texts existing PRIOR to the council you claimed was the beginning of Christianity, the beginning of the RCC, the beginning of the great deception.

    Wikipedia has done the world a great service. They have individual articles about each of various papyri found numbered from 1 to 131, each with pictures of the original documents (as far as I have been able to tell) and with dating and a little background. Start with 1 here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_1

    At the bottom of the page you will find links to the rest of the papyri. Let the reader determine the authenticity of the texts for themselves. I doubt any of the owners of the documents will let you touch them. But examine the images for yourself.

    Here are 131 (actually 129 because it looks like 2 are duplicates) links to old document fragments.

    Doc, please do not make this about religion. I’m not arguing religion. It is only about your attack on the accuracy of the NT texts compared to the oldest ones that have been found, which date BEFORE your glorious RCC 325/328AD council.

    If you will just accept the accuracy of the texts, I will shut up. I don’t care if you disagree with and bash the message, just accept that the texts we have today are, after all, very close to the originals that PREDATE the 325/328AD council, regardless of the message. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Like

  281. Scott says:

    UPDATE:
    Doc, you don’t even have to agree that the NT texts we have today are fairly accurate to what has been discovered. Only agree that there ARE texts that have been discovered that PREDATE the 325/328AD council that CAN be used to verify against what we have in the NT today. That’s it. Agree with that and I shut up about it.

    Like

  282. Doc says:

    The Book of Amos. In the Jewish Word/Tora/Tanakh
    The Book of Hosea. In the Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh
    The Book of Isaiah. In the Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh.

    You reach into the abyss grasshopper with your question.

    Since even the Jewish Word, ‘today’, are transcriptions in verbatim of the old texts from thousands of years ago, no the named persons did not write the scripts.
    They were though not written in the 4th century AD as the NT was written.
    This per science, honorable theologians and the RCC. (knew you’d like me adding them into the mix!)

    Christian texts are creations of the first council of Nicaea. Though you do not believe this happened. I am not saying that they came out of nowhere. They are the rewrites of the thousands of pages of texts brought to this meeting to be read through, culled, burned, changed, accepted, denied and etc. so there could be one common religion from that point forward, Christianity. All were ordered to abide by it or ‘else’. This too from the RCC’s encyclopedia.

    These Hebrew/Jewish texts I spoke about that when one reads an original the wording is very odd, not easy to understand without the knowledge of the history of God and his people.
    One does not pick up a true ancient text and read it like christians do with their NT. They are as different as the two tablets of the 10 commandments and the IRS code of today.
    This is why when a christian reads a NT text and try’s to tell people this is Gods words, it’s met with disbelief by those that have seen ancient texts and had explained to them how they differ from today’s man made religions. And might I remind you that God warned mankind to never change his words. I’m sure you know of this? If not I’ll send you the link.

    Before you or for that matter anyone from any religion begins to challenge the Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh, remember it is the OT for christians, a part of the woven fabric of Buddah and of Krishna, and even of Islam in terms of the very same stories that are told regarding the Hebrew/God relationship.
    It’s roots are from the beginning when Adam and Eve were here and follows time through Cain/Able/Seth and their lineage through Enoch (Noah’s Great Grandfather) and so on.
    The Hebrew line is from God and to this very day the first human blood line of Gods. All people in reality come from this Hebrew/Jewish ancestry.
    We just can’t become a Jew, assuming one would want to.
    Adam and Eve were his first humans made unto the likeness of the God(s).
    They were the first Hebrews/Jews.

    Only christians use/accept the NT. No other religion does. If they do they have to be christians because the christian faith relies solely on the Jesus being God.

    This one fact, that all religions recognize and accept the OT/Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh is a very strong pillar to stand near when explaining the ancient texts.
    The Hebrews/Jews, the very first civilization with a God connection that exists even to this day (from Adam to 2016), Gods chosen people.
    Chosen at that time above all else on earth to be his connection to his creations, have safeguarded, kept the texts pure and verbatim at all times and have spent over 1500 years studying them, categorizing them, translating them verbatim, studying ancient texts/languages/people and share openly their work so that they may spread the word of God. No other belief system has ever taken on this task because the true ancient texts, those before AD, are all Hebrew/Jewish/God related texts. Nothing is ever brought up regarding Christianity in it.

    It’s hard and I see why (I am not a Jew and could never be one) everyone is really on the outs with the Jews.
    We can’t join, and we don’t have their connection to God.
    We are as humans sometimes become, jealous and or angered at them because of their position.
    Now that does not mean they are all pure or always correct or cannot make a mistake, like the RCC’s claims about the Pope being infallible. Bunk, just bunk.
    But that’s how it is.

    CYa
    Doc
    Remain being nice.

    Like

  283. Doc says:

    I don’t doubt that texts do exist pre 325 AD. They had to because Constantine ordered via invitation I believe 8000 persons to come and I think @ 1000 or 800 actually showed up with the many texts you may be referring to.

    CYa

    Like

  284. Shoshana says:

    Doc seems to me I cite the Tanach much more than the Writings of the Apostles or Talmidin, as they were known in Hebrew.
    Earlier I also mentioned how the Roman dictatorship syncretized paganism with the real thing to suit their political purposes.
    I am well aware that what we have from their writings are translations from translations from renmants. Still they cited the only scriptures they used, the Tanach, frequently.
    Shabbat shalom

    Like

  285. Scott says:

    Doc,

    You seem to turn everything into a religious barrage, always trying to get your jabs into Christianity. You’re like a fighter who is always trying to fight everyone, even though no one is fighting you. As far as I have read, you are the only one on this blog, by far, who continuously brings up Christianity every chance you get because you have your own ax to grind against it. I’m sorry you got so disillusioned with the RCC, but let’s get over it already. I really hope you don’t do this to your grandson – could really push him away. My grandfather was similar and it was very difficult being around him at times.

    You said “Before you or for that matter anyone from any religion begins to challenge the Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh, remember it is the OT for Christians.” Doc, as far as I have read, I don’t believe ANYONE on this blog has challenged the Jewish Word/Torah/Tanakh or OT! You are fighting phantoms. And all the Christians I know REVERE the OT. (Yes, they also revere the NT, but that is not the topic because we already know where you stand on it.)

    Thank you for your answer to the first question; the “NO” that 3 of the texts I mentioned that you read and hold in great esteem were NOT personally written by hand by each author. I only asked that question because that was the very standard you proffered in a previous message to Shoshana, and I quote:

    “The gospels that you use today have been noted by all theologians that will provide proof to support their position, were not written (personally/by hand) by MMLJ.”

    You hold out one standard for the dastardly Christian bunch, but you are not even adhering to the same standard yourself. That, Doc, is hypocrisy.

    Thank you for your concise answer in your 2nd posting, and practically without the customary Christianity bashing comments! That was refreshing. I had to look twice to make sure it actually came from you. 😉 Thank you for agreeing that some manuscripts actually DID exist before the 325AD council – that is progress. Even though there could be a whole lot more productive discussion that could be had between two reasonable people about such documents at this point, I will keep my word and now shut up about that because at least you have finally admitted to what I’ve been trying demonstrate for, what, all year? Not a religious test; a historic hard data test.

    I’ll catch you later. And be nice to Shoshana. They have been nothing but gentle and respectful in their posts. I’d say let them have their NT quotes. We ALL know where you stand on the NT – just disagree. Hopefully you can get over the urge to bash everyone who mentions anything related to the NT and Christianity.

    TTFN

    Like

  286. Shoshana says:

    Stephen there is no question that the writings of the disciples took place starting around the year 65 CE. These are writings they sent to the different Nazarene congregations formed mostly of the lost sheep of Israel. That the Romans later on changed things their way does not take away that the disciple’s writings antecede their actions.

    Now among the changes instituted by Rome was the renaming of the Jews and Gentiles (many of whom were wild olive branches or lost sheep of Israel as it remains to this day) that accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah in the Tanach. In Antioch we see them calling the Jewish believers followers of The Way ‘christians’. I use christian with lower case ‘c’ because back then Cesar was a christ as was the deity Serapis Crestus whose followers where known as cristianus or christians. These were pagans that in no way can be confused with the followers of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua or Salvation, who first came as Moshiach Ben Yosef and is about to return as Moshiach Ben David. It was Rome who changed the name of the believers and after the destruction of the Temple and ransacking of Jerusalem added many pagan beliefs and took away much such as the change from Yah’s Sabbath to sun day and Yah’s moedim for which He created the sun and moon (Gen 1:14) to pagan ones such as saturnalia.

    Like

  287. Shoshana says:

    Doc you make reference to two subjects here. To make it concise. The alphabet we both have clearly says that H, the letter hey, means behold as in “hey you, pay attention”, the Y or yod means “nail or peg”, and the V or vav means “hand or arm”. There is no hiding that fact.

    Now that the rabbinate has chosen not to openly admit to this is another thing but many a rabbi know there were to be two visits of Messiah, first as Moshiach Ben Yosef or the SUFFERING Messiah to which the prophets testified, and later the triumphant one, Moshiach Ben David. The spring feasts have been fulfilled and the fall ones are about to be fulfilled. We are seeing Ezekiel 37 unfolding. Time for both branches of Israel to do shuvah, repent.

    Like

  288. Shoshana says:

    Rome as I mentioned earlier, did a lot of harm for political reasons. Perhaps the admonition to leave father and mother is a veiled reference to this, Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5; Eph 5:31. The actual Jewish writings of the talmidim or disciples were done by PRACTICING JEWS much earlier that you seem to indicate and reflect their adherence to the principles of Torah. True that translations have suffered from additions reflecting the bias of the translator such as we see in SOME items found in the writings of the apostles. The worse is not what is actually written but the twists the so called “fathers of the church” and the Roman system have given those same writings to accommodate their basically heretic beliefs. Case in point claiming the “law” of the Almighty was done away with, and worse that Rome, not Israel is the chosen body of ‘christ’ (this may be partially true if one sees Cesar, as christ or anointed). I would dare say the Roman version of the true Jewish Messiah is really an anomia cristus romanus or Roman Christ, a true heretic that not only looks Roman or Greek but that denied the very instructions for living that Yeshua gave Moshe for Israel, who are still the chosen people. Again, it all had to do mostly with politics and power as usual…

    As I noted earlier I have for the most part quoted from the Tanach, which by the way I refuse to call ‘old’, same as I won’t call the Writings of the Apostles “new testament”, as that is not what they are. Technically the RE-newed covenant is the one described in Jer 31:31-36 that is taking place now. The term ‘New Testament’ is attributed to one of the “church fathers”, Tertullian, 155 –225 CE, as he wrote Latin Novum Testamentum.

    Moreover, I refrain from calling Gentile believers ‘christians’ as that refers to pagans that preceded Yeshua’s ministry as Second Adam, and although many do act like their pagan predecessors, many are very sincere in their beliefs, albeit sometimes misguided by their Roman heritage that denies the very basic instructions or Torah that the Eternal established when He created this earth. There is a reason Abel and Noah knew about sacrifices and about the difference between clean and unclean animals, Gen 4, 7:2, 8:20. There is also a reason Israel is REMINDED to observe Yahveh’s ETERNAL Sabbath day in the 4th commandment. The weekly Sabbath as well as the 7 yearly ones are connected with this earth and while it is still here these, along with the food ordinances that even Jews disdain, will remain. In fact Yahveh’s Sabbath itself is eternal, just as He is, Isaiah 66.

    Yes during the various Roman councils, not just Nicaea early in the 4th century but in prior ones as well, various changes were officiated. I say officiated because once the leadership of the followers of Yeshua as the PROMISED JEWISH Messiah changed from Jewish to Gentile hands, as it did around 100 CE, a lot of compromising of Torah took place, mostly to avoid Roman persecution. Many of these compromises were later made official during the various councils. However, to claim as you do that was renamed NT happened at the Council of Nicaea in 4 CE is not correct as this process began earlier by the so called ‘fathers of the church’.

    Note this entry by the Jewish Virtual Library regarding the writings of the apostles:
    “At the beginning of the second century, only the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint counted as inspired Scripture for Christians. By the end of that century, almost all the 27 books had widely acquired that status and Christian writers were speaking of Scripture as “the writings of the Old Covenant and of the New Covenant.” The contrast is derived from the expression “new covenant” (berit ḥadashah) of Jeremiah 31:31 (30), which receives various interpretations (as kainê diathêkê) in the NT books. The English names “Old Testament” and “New Testament” reflect the translation of that expression (as novum testamentum) in Latin versions of the NT.”
    In this same article they testify about the antiquity of the documents used today by Christians:
    “Whereas earlier fashion dated many of them to the period 100–140 C.E., current fashion puts almost all of them within 50–100 C.E. One leading scholar, John A.T. Robinson, dated them all before 70 C.E., above all because it is difficult to identify any NT author who is clearly aware of the Jewish catastrophe of that year.”

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14801.html

    Doc I do not see others, myself included, trying to belittle anyone about their beliefs. The Eternal does not have a religion per se, religions are made by men and often are used as a means to control others. Yahveh has His eternal word that will never change. He pronounced some of it when He made this heaven and earth and which He later gave to a people He chose to set apart as His own giving these chosen ones the way to live as well as the charge to shamar or guard, not just His word but this earth as well. He provides for The Way from the get go, is up to us to believe and follow.

    Like

  289. Doc says:

    Well I guess that since this is a christian based site I can always sum up my feelings this way:

    God is the only savoir we have. There is no other savior other than he.
    To believe different is just against all that God says and has said to us.

    Why anyone would believe in an alternate savior is beyond me since there is no proof for it, no matter how hard anyone wants to fight; and, most importantly, God himself said it. Besides to be clearly logical if there were proof that God was not the only savior as he said in Hosea, we would then be able to look upon God and say he was a liar. I’d really not feel good being in that camp. I like him just like he is, my savior, father, friend.

    If one cannot takes Gods word then they are in my opinion just being foolish or they have been fooled by others.

    God and I are buds. He’s my heavenly father. I’m a child of God. I am a male child of God. I am a son of God as are all male human beings. Women are daughters of God.

    So, christians listen. With the above statement I have just made, the Jesus is a son of God, just like me and all other male humans. I concede to your belief that the Jesus is a son of God as long as you concede that I too am a son of God as are all male humans.

    Pretty simple. Yeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwww
    CYa

    Like

  290. Scott says:

    Doc,

    Correct me if I am wrong, but going back through this very long blog, I don’t think I’ve seen anywhere where any “Christians” have criticized your beliefs. (I could be wrong….) I, personally, have challenged what I considered certain facts where I believed you said something that was factually incorrect. But I don’t think I, nor any others on this blog have criticized your beliefs. On the contrary, you have criticized and condemned the Christian beliefs almost constantly. But I forgive you for that… 🙂

    Thank you for your recent post allowing me (and others) to have my (and their) own beliefs. I will continue to allow you to have yours. You are free to believe you are a son of God – I will not challenge that belief of yours unless you want to actually discuss it. I’d like to think that we are all children of God, but that is really for God to decide, not me. You certainly seem sincere and well versed in your beliefs. That is admirable. And you seem to have a good heart, and that is admirable too. I am content to call you a friend. I hope that is acceptable.

    By the way, I’m not certain Shoshana wants to be called a “Christian.” Might want to check on that… 🙂

    TTFN

    Like

  291. Doc says:

    Did not mean to label anyone. My bad. Don’t have but a few christians dissing me such as TE Hanna. Blocked me from his web blog when the questions got too difficult for him. I still get messages from some on his site but can’t reply, as I said have been blocked.
    I don’t condemn any beliefs, christian or otherwise. If I have my apology.
    Condemn is a tough place to go for a mere mortal. Kinda against Gods way.
    I ask where they came from and am as ass at times when I need to have proof. Just really stubborn about that at times and it does not serve everyone equally. Again my bad.
    I get a bit too eager or too out there at times, I know that. My youngest son says I ought to have been an atty for the mob the way I tear things apart in conversations. We laugh about that even to this day.
    I always want to be tolerated at the worst and invited at the best.
    No one has all or any of the answers which is why this and many other topics go on forever. Wish god had left a ‘owners manual’ with Adam and Eve. Maybe I/we/all of us would be better people or at least not so very bad at times.
    None of you are wrong about your beliefs because they are your beliefs.
    We just disagree.

    CYa
    Wish you all well, thanks for putting up with an old dog.
    Doc

    Like

  292. Shoshana says:

    First off Doc I am not a christian because I have since I was awakened during Yah’s fall feasts of 2000 following HIS feasts and Sabbath that He made during this earthly creation, Gen 1, 2. Also follow His food ordinances as has been done from the beginning, Gen 7:2. Today by the way is Yom Teruah, Yahveh’s 5th annual moed of feast that is known in Judaism as Rosh Hashanah (due to Babylonian influence, but that is another subject). Basically I don’t believe in the trinity although I do believe Yah’s Ruach can and does empower and guide His children. He has also shown me that Yeshua was impaled on a TREE near the red heifer altar becoming our red heifer sin sacrifice and taking our curses upon Him.

    Now to salvation or Yeshua, name that appears many times in the Tanach. Who was the man clothed in linen that the prophet Daniel was speaking to in Daniel 10? The one that told Daniel He was fighting the prince of Persia (satan, lucifer, the adversary) and the archangel Michael gave Him a hand so He could come to Daniel. Who is the Lord that in Hebrew says YHVH sit by YHVH in Psalm 110:2? Did you know that in the Quran scrolls that is rendered as YHVH sit by Melchizedek? Who was this Melchizedek that Abraham tithed to? What is the priestly order of Melchizedek? What about Isa 53 and 61? Proverbs 30:4? Who is the “Lord” that appeared to Abraham in Gen 12:7, that wrestled with Yacob, and moreover that identified Himself as ‘behold the hand behold the nail’ to Moshe? Can’t ignore what is there.

    Yom Teruach Sameach to all!

    Like

  293. Shoshana says:

    If we really understood the HEBREW mindset of 2000-4000 years ago, especially when it comes to Middle East covenants and if we read scripture within the CONTEXT it was written then the likelihood of so many denominations would be slim. Is not what I/we think; is what He thinks that counts. The clay does not tell the maker how to shape it. We don’t decide policy because He has done that already. Either we do TESHUVA (true repentance and adoption of Yah’s way) and enter into COVENANT with Him, HIS WAY or we simple stay outside the gate.

    The time is VERY short. I am talking 2017, I am talking drastic changes coming soon. Time to take our heads out from under the sand and turn our faces towards Him who made us!!

    Like

  294. Jake says:

    I keep seeing a lot of talk about the word virgin in the old testament as meaning “young girl” and that is true, but People, please realize that it still means the same thing. In biblical time a young Jewish girl would have most definitely been a virgin, because if not, she would have been stoned to death for fornication. Also once married a young jewish girl would be considered to be, and referred to as a woman. So when the texts actually read as young girl in the O/T, knowing God’s law as it is in the Bible itself, it seems to be self evident that the term virgin, while not stated as the same word, was in fact what was meant/implied, and would have been understood by the people of that time.

    Like

  295. Shoshana says:

    Good point Jake. Most definitely a young girl or almas would have been a virgin or she would have been killed. People keep on missing the fact that scriptures were written at another time and from a Middle Eastern people point of view, not from a Western civilization Greek mind set.

    Chief among those differences is the Covenant concept. You and your word were one, your name and the integrity of your name was of great importance. This is why Yah’s covenant with Israel will endure while this earth endures, same as Yah’s moedim or 7 yearly feasts and HIS Sabbath that HE instituted during the creation of this earth. Enter Mat 5:17-19; while THIS earth and heaven exists those statutes will exist. No man, no power or principalities, and certainly no religion or stinky political system can change it. They have tried as the Roman imperialists have and the prophet Daniel said they would but that doesn’t mean they are valid. Yahveh does not recognized sun day or any man-made feasts as HIS because they are not nor will they ever be, no matter how man turns it or massages it.

    As far as the Eternal is concerned there is only one Sabbath, HIS, the 7th day one. There is only one set of feasts, sacred appointment times or moedim, HIS 7 feasts (we just had Yom Teruah and this week will be Yom Kippur). There is only one chosen assembly, people: Israel, the NATURAL OLIVE tree of whom Yeshua is the root. No replacement theory will ever change that.

    The Gentiles better hurry and learn the book from the start and stop fooling around with the notion that grace by itself is a ticket to paradise because it isn’t. At best in some cases many Gentiles will find themselves as guests at the wedding feast but the bride of Messiah is made by those who study to show themselves approved and DO the WILL OF THE FATHER, which is Torah as Yeshua and His Jewish disciples did it, not rabbinical style, but following The Way. Abraham did, Gen 26:5, in FAITH, same as Noah who knew the difference between unclean and clean animals putting in the arc 1 pair of unclean animals but 7 pairs of clean ones, Gen 7:2. They followed Torah after the order of Melchizedek.

    What are so many well-meaning christians doing in church buildings this morning when they should have done this yesterday? They are in disobedience to Yahveh’s precepts and really following Rome’s. Unless they rested on Yah’s 7th day yesterday, which also happens to be the 4th commandment, they are disobeying. Why are many of their houses and even some of their church buildings paying homage to demons this time of the year celebrating halloween? Why do they insist in twisting scripture and celebrating what is really the Roman saturnalia, no matter in whose name is done? Ditto for isktar’s celebration in the spring, full of fertility symbols. Man can not mix dark and light. That is called being LUKEWARM and Yah will spew such out of His mouth. Again it goes against Middle East covenant and conventions. Study and leave behind father and mother; lBabylon/Rome.

    Like

  296. unkleE says:

    Hi Jake, thanks for visiting and commenting.

    I’m sure you are correct in all you say. But there is a Hebrew word specifically for virgin (betulah), as well as one for a young or unmarried girl (almah). So this means it is pdoubtful if Isaiah wanted to emphasise this girl’s virginity. There are arguments both ways.

    Proverbs 30:18-20 talks of “the way of a man with a young woman” (almah), which may indicate the girl wasn’t a virgin beforehand, although it may not. On the other hand, when the Jews translated their scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos (= virgin).

    I don’t think we have a conclusive answer.

    Like

  297. GlorytoGOD says:

    looking for a list, but instead came upon this. Just wondering if all of us christians study the bible , listen to the pastor and follow gods word why argue the point of this and that human understanding. It pulls us apart from being to what jesus said as one, with one accord we should praise him and worship him; Therefore follow his path set for us.

    Like

  298. Doc says:

    You should already be able to answer this for yourself by the question you asked.
    It is because every different christian based faith system teaches a bit different line of christianity.
    Preachers, priests, evangelicals, etc; all teach based on what they have decided the words from the Hebrew Word (OT) and the 4th century NT mean.
    Even you can understand with 40,000 different persons reading something out of the ‘bible’ as we call it, there are going to be hundreds if not thousands of different meanings or understandings. This is the failing of the christian belief system. It is splintered in it’s belief system.
    You probably believe the Jesus is your savior even though God himself tells you in the book of Hosea that besides him, there is no other savior. So who do you believe is your savior? God who says he is, or the Jesus that the christian belief system say is?
    I would not turn my back on God willingly if I were you or anyone else.
    CYa
    Be blessed because that’s what he does for us, blesses us.

    Like

  299. Anonymous says:

    If Mary was a virgin they would of forced the father to marry her. Since there was no father she would have went and lived with her parents. BUT Mary was married to Joseph already so it made her a adulteress. And that what the Jewish leaders labeled her. Jesus tell his followers to obey all that the leaders say and them some. So don’t add up

    Like

  300. doG says:

    But just one difference in opinion, or a difference of how to do something, just one difference in how they worship, just one small inconsistency, shows your god to be fallible, negating god, highlighting that all versions of Abrahamic religions as being false, it’s all just a bad human condition.

    Like

  301. unkleE says:

    Hi Anonymous, perhaps Mary was a virgin, Jesus had no human father, Joseph married her anyway because he trusted God, just like the Bible says? That all makes sense, doesn’t it?

    Hi DOG, do you think that God should have made everyone with exactly the same tastes and opinions?

    Like

  302. Doc says:

    I guess this is the rub with most websites or blogs. It seems one has to be a member of some group to be saved. I was raised a catholic. I am no longer one after over 10 years a reading and perusing through ancient texts which access was provided to me by some Jewish persons, now friends, I met on an Alaskan cruise.
    I am not a member of any religion. I believe in God. Just as God told the prophet Amos in the book of Amos (and I’m going to summarize here since I have already posted the statement paraphrased) God wants nothing to do with any man made religion. All God asks of us as he tells the prophet Amos is a flow of Justice and Righteousness throughout his world. So, it does not, according to God, require any person to be a member of any man made religion to be saved. And here I go with a “segue or seqway” into the next item, our savior. In the book of Hosea God himself tells the prophet Hosea that he is the one and only God/Supreme Being and that besides him there is no other savior.
    This is by the way in the Christian bible albeit in the old testament side. Why christians do know this is beyond me.
    Now I understand there is going to be some kick back by christians but my information comes from the Jewish Tanakh and the Tora which are from the Hebrew writings and were borrowed by christianity and all other man made religions to create what christians call the Old Testament.
    The New Testament, which assembled in the 4th century AD under the rule of a pagan ruler Constantine with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the rulers of England/Great Brittan to become the very first ever written/assembled christian bible. No other bible is known to exist before the 325/328 time frame. The RCC has a or several copies of this original christian bible but will not allow it to be handled or seen or copied by the public. And for good reason.
    Hope this informed you but did not upset you. It would have not been my intent to have upset anyone.
    Please, lets not go back and forth over this. It’s simple. You look up what I have explained and you’ll see the statements are correct. If you don’t look up what I have said then there is no reason to reply with a disagreement.
    CYa

    Like

  303. Anne says:

    Christ established only ONE Church…One Truth. This would be the One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. Matthew 16-18. The Holy Catholic Church is not a denomination. She is the only true Christian Church. There are over 40,000 Protestant man made churches all arguing over holy Scripture interpretation! This is shocking as Christ prayed for “unity.” The Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Christian Bible that Protestants have in their home, yet, most Protestants reject and doubt the Holy Catholic Church. The Catholic Church Governs Christianity and she always will! No Protestant has the authority to interpret Holy Scripture as there are over 40,000 interpretation in the protestant church. Protestants reject the Holy Eucharist which is the Bread of Life as seen in Holy Scripture. The early Church Fathers believed that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ yet, Protestants doubt the early Church Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles. Protestants need to “stop the protest” and come back to the Catholic Church.

    ” Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” ~ Saint Ignatius of Antioch, early Church Father A.D. 110

    Like

  304. Doc says:

    Spoken like a true christian. Turning your back on God it seems?
    Book of Hosea. Give it a read. God is the only Savior. Therefore Jesus cannot be.
    RCC bible was written/compiled/translated in 325 328 AD and in @ 350 AD the first completed bibles were in distribution. RCC Encyclopedia will tell you this as a fact they hold.
    It’s funny how christians only quote christian works? Is that because that is all that supports their belief system?
    I was raised a RCC and at 42 found out all the lies and twisted statements of non-fact.
    Your absurd use of the gender regarding the RCC is odd. The RCC has a gender? Really, I’m shocked to have never know that it was a She or a Her.
    Lighten up.
    All religions are man made. God nor the Jesus ever stated anything regarding any man made religion. Only mankind has done such and has done such through lies. No man speaks for God. Or for that matter no woman or gendered church.
    CYa

    Like

  305. Anonymous says:

    You were never Catholic as Anti-Catholics always claim to be “ex Catholics” just to bash the Church! If you were REALLY a Catholic, then you would know that the Holy Catholic Church is referred to as “she” because the Holy Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. You did not know this? Christ CLEARLY established His Church as seen in Matthew 16-18. Why do you deny Christ’s Words to Peter? Why do you despise the Church who compiled and canonized the Christian Bible that YOU have in your home? If you are a former Catholic, then why would you abandon the Holy Eucharist?? What “twisted” statements are you talking about? Please explain?

    Like

  306. delta4ce1 says:

    The Roman Catholic Church isn’t a denomination of the church Jesus attempted to establish, it’s the largest of all the false Christian denominations that exist and of which there is a growing number. What makes it a false form of Christianity is that it represents a works based ideology. Works, by the way, is not antithetical to faith. Works are absolutely necessary for authentic faith to exist and it’s irrefutable evidence correctly interpreted that establishes faith and sets it apart from prejudice or just a risk or gamble as the term faith is usually and wrongly used. The golden rule that Jesus said was his doctrine of justification with him being a living, breathing, walking, talking perfect representation of is “the way, the truth, and the life” that Jesus said was “the keys to the kingdom of God” thus the “way of salvation” to those that correctly understood it. Most, however, never correctly understood and so weren’t converted to it so that freedom from Roman occupation and oppression was never realized and the kingdom was not restored to the Jews as Jesus had said it would be if the Jews as a whole repented of their legalism or Pharisaical (hypocritical) ways of judging between right and wrong. It’s the golden rule way of life that frees people from a legalistic law of works so that people aren’t judged by their actions but rather by their true motives. It’s this that defines the real difference between authentic Christianity and Islam which is essentially not different from how the Pharisees thought and the reason that Jesus correctly called them hypocrites and satanists.

    Like

  307. delta4ce1 says:

    The Catholic Church represents the largest denomination of false Christianity because of it’s works based theology and doctrine of justification. Jesus taught the golden rule religion or “way of life” or salvation. The difference is in how a person judges right and wrong. A works based doctrine of salvation determines right and wrong based on a person’s actions with regard to the various requirements of some code of law and how perfectly or ‘to the letter’ they are obeyed. The golden rule frees people from such injustice so that all those who obey it can’t justly be charged with sin no matter what they do. Their motives which are unselfish justify everything they do. This is why Rahab could lie and not sin or David could steal and not sin etc. So, the golden rule is “the word of God that saves those that believe it and obey it.”

    Like

  308. unkleE says:

    Hi Anne, thanks for reading and commenting. It is nice to see someone so enthusiastic about their church.

    But I think you have overstated and over-simplified the case a little. For example …

    There are not 40,000 interpretations in the Protestant churches (my post explains that). There is more than one Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches began before the Roman Catholic church. I am not aware of Protestants particularly doubting the early church fathers (who were in any most cases Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic).

    I totally agree with you that there should be more unity among christians, as Jesus prayed. But I don’t think making such strong and absolute statements as you have made really helps that cause, I’m sorry. I respect your views even where I disagree with them, but I would hope you might be more able to respect Protestant views in return.

    Would you like to discuss further?

    Like

  309. delta4ce1 says:

    Lies are easier to believe than the truth

    There a lot of sayings about lies and truth. There’s this one for example: A lie will circle the earth before truth can get its boots on. I have several personal favorites. Here’s one. “A prophet (teacher) is not without honor except in his own home or country no matter how truthful he might be.”

    Have you ever wondered why it seems that people believe so many lies or things that aren’t true or at least that they don’t know are true or not? Some are prone to say that it’s the Devil making them do it but putting it that way, while justifiable, causes most people to feel a sense of revulsion because they are so ignorant and “turned off” by what they mistakenly call religion especially if it’s called Christian. This sort of sickening feeling isn’t really unwarranted. The divided state of what’s called Christianity and the fact that it’s so subjective in nature and those calling themselves Christians are so ignorant of the Bible and all things related is at the root of the problem. However, at the very bottom of it all is the rather natural human tendency to be mentally lazy and naively leave the study of such things to others who can’t possibly know any more than any other human if they’d really try to learn what the truth is.

    Now, I can show anyone that seriously wants to learn the truth that if what Jesus’ biographers say he said is correct that Jesus was wrong about some very important things but like everyone he was also right about some things. [By the way, Jesus wasn’t sinless from the time of his conception and before either!] He was dead on correct in saying that those that really wanted to know the truth about him and what he was teaching would have to want it as much as the air they breathe and search for it with all their energy willing to sacrifice everything they had including loved ones and every last penny if necessary.

    The reason for this should be rather obvious. From the moment we’re born we begin to be immersed in all the things our parents and others around us believe so that we start out thinking that everything they say is true. By the time we reach our teen years we’re so indoctrinated in those things that we never really stop to question just how much of it is actually true. Then, when faced with things that sound contradictory, especially by people close to us, we tend to recoil in doubt because we’ve watched this person change his mind many times just as we do and this changing of one’s mind tends to lead us to falsely think that no one can ever actually “know” the truth even though we usually speak as if we know it. It doesn’t dawn on us that most of what we think we know is really just hearsay including what’s in the Bible and what supposed experts say about what the Bible says or means!

    For example, most people don’t realize that there’s an important difference between saying that the Bible is the word of God and what Jesus meant by the “word” of God or “the truth” in other words and this difference is easily discovered by anyone that is really serious about wanting to know “the truth.” If you are a fatalist, someone that believes that God planned everything including what humans do or think before he even created the universe, then you can say that the Bible was inspired by him word for word. But, if you are a fatalist then you have to believe that everything that was ever written was inspired by God as well. However, Jesus wasn’t talking about that when he said that he was “the way, the truth, and the life” or that John said that Jesus was “the word” which “is God” (John 1:1 ff). Jesus was specifically talking about what we call the golden rule and he was saying that he was a living, breathing, walking, talking, representation of it and that any normal human being could be that too. In fact, that they must be that if they were going to faithfully follow him. And, in being a representative of the golden rule they would be just as sinless or as “good” as God according to their concept of God. In other words, they could be God in exactly the same sense that he said he was God and because of that God would recognize them as sons and daughters!

    According to Jesus, the golden rule is the only thing anyone has to believe and do and any normal person can do it as well as Jesus is said to have done it thus making them one in unison with the mind of God so that there is no division or denominations at all among the true followers of Jesus.

    Like

  310. Anonymous says:

    Hello…the over 40,000 Protestant denominations is accurate with more denominations being made everyday! My question to you is…shouldn’t ALL Christians be on the same page as Christ established only ONE Church? Holy Scripture tells us that the CHURCH is the “Pillar and foundation of Truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15. If this is true, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations al doing their own thing? The Catholic Church still teaches today what the early Church FATHERS taught, so why have the Protestants scattered from the One, true Church of Jesus Christ? Protestants may call themselves “Christian” but they are NOT in communion with the Church established by Christ. The Catholic Church started on Pentecost in 33 A.D. For the first 1,000 years of the history of Christianity, EVERYONE was Catholic. There was no such thing as Protestantism. Why would you disagree with the Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the Christian Bible that Protestants have in their home? I respect al people, but as a Catholic, it is my duty and obligation to speak up and ask Protestants…why are you Protestant if Christ established ONE CHURCH…ONE TRUTH? Why do you reject the holy Eucharist when Christ clearly said…”THIS IS MY BODY.” Catholics are the FIRST Christians as research clearly shows. And yes…Protestants doubt the early church Fathers as the early Church fathers believed the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” ~ Saint Ignatius of Antioch, early church Father, A.D. 110

    I would love to discuss further why Protestants are still protesting the Catholic Church.

    Like

  311. delta4ce1 says:

    I’m sorry but Catholics were not the first Christians nor are they authentic Christians at all nor are the vast majority of people that think of themselves as Christians. Authentic Christians are people that live strictly by the golden rule that literally frees them from such legalistic belief systems as officially practiced by Catholics, virtually all of the denominations that developed out of Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and all other beliefs that misunderstand the idea of true justice or how to consistently determine right from wrong. The golden rule is the only system of belief that can unite all mankind in one mind as Jesus wanted and as he said he was of one mind with God. In fact, John equated the golden rule with God and defined God as love which is what the golden rule expresses so completely. Few people have noticed that Jesus’ doctrine of salvation was very different from Paul’s doctrine of salvation and Catholicism is based mostly on Paul’s mistaken ideas.

    Like

  312. Doc says:

    I enjoy the rhetoric but would love to see a christian, especially a RC to quote from some source other than NT doctrine?
    Something from antiquities maybe???????
    Easy to support one’s stance when all you have to do is use in house documents.
    I mean no harm or ill feelings. Just been seeing this since I was 42 and it never changes. Lots of words, no back up except for the christian doctrine.
    CYa

    Like

  313. delta4ce1 says:

    There should only be one church and there would be only one if people would just recognize that Jesus was a walking, talking, breathing representation of the golden rule and that it was the golden rule that he plainly said was “the way, the truth, and the life.” It was the golden rule that is called “the word” and that John equated with “God” in John 1:1 and then said that Jesus was that word in the flesh as I described. It’s the golden rule that is “the light” of the world, how to understand God in other words.

    It was the golden rule that Jesus tried to make clear people had to correctly understand and obey in order to do his will and be of one mind with God as Jesus and others envisioned God that no one had seen and so could not accurately identify God. Notice that in Acts 7 Stephen says that the Israelites were a church when they were in the Sinai Desert and when you read about that in the OT you’ll see that Israel was preparing for war to restore the land of Canaan to themselves and there was going to be a lot of blood shed in doing that.

    Jesus plainly said that his mission was to bring war and not peace with the enemies of Israel in order to “restore the kingdom” to Israel” with the caveat that enough Israelis would repent and accept him as king and do what he said. We know what happened. The Israelites, for the most part, died in their sin or as slaves to Rome due to rejecting what Jesus was teaching and what he was constantly exhibiting and teaching was the golden rule as I said. Had they united under the golden rule they might have gained their freedom from Rome but they remained divided into numerous sects or denominations in other words so that the rebellion that eventually took place failed miserably. .

    Like

  314. unkleE says:

    Hi Anonymous, thanks for continuing the discussion. I would like to clarify a few things if I may please.

    1. I am not protesting the Catholic Church, and I don’t think I have criticised it on this blog. I just happen to attend a non-Catholic church.

    2. There are NOT 40,000 denominations. Most churches agree with the Apostles Creed, which covers most major doctrines. How many minor doctrines would we have to argue over to get 40,000 different combinations? The fact is, as I explain in the post, most of the 40,000 are individual churches, and an individual church is NOT a denomination. In most cases, those individual churches would agree on most doctrines. I agree there are far too many arguments among christians, but I think it is wrong to exaggerate the situation so much.

    3. Do we know which church Jesus established? The first church was the one in Jerusalem, which wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church. So it isn’t actually true that there was only the Catholic Church for the first 1000 years. There were churches all over the Roman Empire, and the Roman church was only one of many. Other cities such as Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc, all exercised leadership too. The Roman church split from the eastern churches after 1000 years, but up until then they were all equals.

    4. So I want to suggest that arguing about which is the one true church is folly, it just continues the arguments. Don’t you think it is best just to get on following Jesus and stop arguing? I hope so.

    Thanks.

    Like

  315. delta4ce1 says:

    The term “church” can be used to speak of one congregation or of all the congregations everywhere in the world. The fact that there were many congregations (churches) all over the Middle East does not mean that they were different from the first congregation in Jerusalem because they were all supposed to believe and practice the same thing. It’s doctrine that defines churches or groups of believers. If there are a thousand churches (congregations) that teach the same thing then they are one church. Jesus required that all of his followers believe the same things that he tried to teach them and that he practiced himself. See John 14 and 17:20 ff.and Matthew 19:16 ff. And Paul recognized this simple principle in 1st Corinthians 1 et al. It isn’t possible for denominations to exist in the true church. Denominations can only exist in churches that falsely claim to be Christian. Since the official doctrines of the Catholic Church drastically differ from what Jesus presented it is a false form of Christianity just as are all of the denominations that came from it.

    Like

  316. Anonymous says:

    Hello…I highly disagree with you as you are highly misinformed as most non Catholics are! The Holy Catholic Church did not split from the eastern churches it is the other way around! Why don’t you research on Catholic websites about these things? The eastern churches split from the Catholic Church. You may say that the 40,000 Protestant denominations is not accurate but research says otherwise! If Christ established only ONE CHURCH, then even ONE denomination would be wrong! Don’t you agree? You think it is wrong to “exaggerate the situation too much?” What a ridiculous comment as souls are at stake! Firstly, why do Protestants deny the holy Eucharist when Christ Himself said…” THIS IS MY BODY.” Jesus said that to have eternal life we must “Eat His flesh and drink His blood.” John 6:53. I highly disagree with your comments and yes, you are protesting the Holy catholic Church. If you want to truly follow Jesus, then you would be Catholic. Protestantism = Confusion and chaos. To know Jesus is to know His Church…the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Matthew 16-18.

    Like

  317. Anonymous says:

    As a Catholic, I can back everything up with Holy Scripture! The Holy Catholic Church put together the New Testament. The Holy Catholic Church will govern Christianity until the end of the world, just as Jesus promised. Matthew 16-18. Protestantism is fading away as it has no foundation. The Holy Catholic Church has survived for over 2000 years. We should thank the Catholic Church for bringing the Holy Bible to the world! By the way, the word “catholic” can be seen in the Greek Bible.

    Like

  318. Anonymous says:

    Even just one denomination is one too many! Christ established only ONE Church…not thousands of Christian churches! Denominations are not seen in Holy Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Christian Bible, yet, Protestants doubt and reject the Catholic Church. One, Holy , Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ. Christ prayed for unity not division. Who has scattered from the One, true Church? The Protestants…

    Like

  319. Doc says:

    OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Another RC that can only back up their stance with in house documents.
    How outdated can a person or their beliefs be!

    Like

  320. Doc says:

    Holy Scripture?!
    Your Holy Scripture was created and assembled in @ 325 AD. That is not ancient by any measure and only documents that the church chose were allowed to be translated into the ‘christian NT’
    Not God, Not the Jesus ever spoke about the RC or the NT regarding christianity.
    It is a new breed of idiocy we have here it seems?
    Holy Scripture my left foot.
    Do some real in depth study and study ancient texts not some in house document or some translation by the greeks where meanings and words were changed.
    OMG!

    Like

  321. Doc says:

    Your Jesus did not create the RCC nor did he create christianity!
    Show me any ancient doc with any proof that this happened, really, please prove me wrong.
    You can’t use christian NT documents because they date back only to 325 AD many many years after the Jesus died as we are told.
    So find some real documents we can be schooled with and be honest.
    You sound like the hard core Islamist the way they speak about their religion is the only way to God. Where did God say this?
    OMG again!