Not so serious anymore

[cardw]

Quote:

Can you give some specific examples in the King James Version?

What gnostic views of Jesus were removed? Do you find more gnostic views in the Critical Text than in the Received Text?

I'd like to know what these are if you are aware them.

If you are really interested in this Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have a number of books on this topic. They provide a lot of evidence, expertise in ancient languages, and access to many documents that have not been completely translated.

Here is a brief interview with Bart Ehrman...

Interview with Bart Ehrman

And a link to Elaine Pagel's book...

The Gnostic Gospels

[cardw]

Quote:

It is the majority who have no faith in God or in the Bible as the word of God.

This has absolutely no basis in fact. Unbelievers have risen from 10 percent to 16 percent, but they are still, by far, a minority.

[Lineman]

Originally Posted By: Lineman

I used to have that problem too, believe it or not. Then a couple of things happened. One, I was shown that if I continued on the course I was on I would never make it to heaven...

Could you explain briefly why you believe this?

There are some on the Forum who believe that a person can be saved while living in sin and that since we are saved by Christ's righteousness, it doesn't matter what we do as long as we "know" Jesus.

Why I believe what? Why I believe that I would never make it to heaven if I kept going the way I was going?

How can a Christian who loves God do things on purpose that they know will embarrass and bring dishonor to our God? The whole universe is watching, including our guardian angel. How can I bring this kind of shame on my awesome God?

What is my reason for doing whatever it is that I am doing? Is it just for ME? How is that suppose to be like Jesus and like He wants me to be? How is that putting Him first? Seems that this is putting SELF first.

When I fall, Jesus is willing to pick me up and set me on the right path if I ask Him, yes, but the problem seems to be that after I fall I have very little desire to ask for His help and the more I keep doing what it is that is wrong the less I feel like asking for God to forgive me and help me. Kind of like a spirial to the death.

We know that we are saved by faith. Understanding what faith really is and how works comes in can be illustrated by a man with two young kids. They all go to the lake and walk out on a dock. Dad gets into the water that's only about 4 feet deep and he asks the kids if they trust him to catch them. They both say yes. One jumps while the other is afraid to. One really does have faith, the other's actions (works) show that even though trust (faith) is claimed it is not genuine.

Christians are like that. We can say we trust God, but our works prove if we really do or not.

"Those who make no decided effort, but simply wait for the Holy Spirit to compel them to action, will perish in darkness. You are not to sit still and do nothing in the work of God." Last Day Events, page 196

If I have already let Jesus take my heart (trust) then He expects me to follow His lead (works).

[John317]

Quote:

Can you give some specific examples in the King James Version?

What gnostic views of Jesus were removed? Do you find more gnostic views in the Critical Text than in the Received Text?

I'd like to know what these are if you are aware them.

If you are really interested in this Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have a number of books on this topic. They provide a lot of evidence, expertise in ancient languages, and access to many documents that have not been completely translated....

Can you cite an example that you know of, of gnostic beliefs that were removed from the New Testament? What gnostic view is in the Critical Text?

I'm aware of the gnostic gospels and writings that never were part of Christian beliefs and were rejected for good reasons.

I did read the article on early Christianity. It's a good one. I didn't find anything it that I would disagree with. It's no different from the things I read and studied in the classes I took in church history.

Those links, however, don't answer my question about beliefs that were removed from the New Testament or about gnostic views that are in the Critical Text but not in the Textus Receptus, or Majority Text.

It is interesting, by the way, that the article mentions the gnosticism that was so prevalent in Alexanderia. Despite the differences between the church there and the one in Rome, they agreed with regard to Sunday. By the fourth and fifth centuries, both encouraged worship on Sunday and discouraged the keeping of the Sabbath.

[John317]

Quote:

It is the majority who have no faith in God or in the Bible as the word of God.

This has absolutely no basis in fact. Unbelievers have risen from 10 percent to 16 percent, but they are still, by far, a minority.

Yes, I understand that, but I am not going by what people merely claim. I've seen people claim to be atheists and then pray when they got into some real trouble. In the same way, I've seen people claim to believe, but when it came right down to it, they didn't really believe after all.

I'm talking about faith as it's described in the New Testament. I'm not sure there are many people today with that kind of faith.

You've no doubt heard of Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead." He meant that most people in our modern world live as if there is no God.

You may be referring to an intellectual assent to an abstract idea, such as most people will give when asked if they believe in God or in the Bible. Many of those people have never really even seriously studied the Bible and if you were to ask them what the Bible teaches, they wouldn't be able to tell you very much.

The Bible says the devils believe and tremble. They don't have saving faith, which is the only kind of faith that really matters. This kind of faith isn't in the majority. It's in the minority. Would you agree?

[John317]

I agree with your post, Lineman. I was interested in hearing-- I mean reading-- your thoughts on this. We sometimes have some confusion on the Forum about that, it seems. Thanks.

[cardw]

Quote:

What is the worst, "forceful suppression" you know of?

What evidence do you have that Christians were responsible for the destruction of the Library at Alexandria?

Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria:

"Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict between the Pagans and Christians. At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt.

"And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum.

"Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for the relief of the poor.

"All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.'"

There is a growing consensus among historians that the Library of Alexandria likely suffered from several destructive events, but that the destruction of Alexandria's pagan temples in the late 4th century was probably the most severe and final one. The evidence for that destruction is the most definitive and secure.

Quote:

You seem to be claiming that Christians were intentionally and deliberately lying or making up lies about fundamental truths regarding the origin of Christianity. Is this what you are saying?

This is essentially the early Western church did, much like we took Christopher Colombus and made him a great explorer. Much like we did with our early history and taking the Pilgrim story instead of Jamestown as a symbol of the first settlement of the New World. These types of revisions and modifications are seen as correcting the story, rather than lying.

A modern sensibility of facts and stepping outside one's own bias are modern concepts that few followed among ancient writers because if you wrote the truth you might be killed, much like today. Writers that question Christian history get death threats all the time. Some of them write under a pseudonym for that reason.

When I defended Christian ideas to atheists a number of years ago, I never got the terrible responses that I get from Christians. Christians, often anonymously, use extremely violent language, which often includes threats of death in some pretty vindictive manners. This should tell you something of the fruit of this belief system. I never got a threat of any kind from an atheist.

Quote:

How does this harmonize with the fact that hundreds of thousands of them were willing to die for what they believed? Would you say that leaders such as Peter and Paul and John were dishonest and made up lies?

Christian persecution, while real, paled compared to the violence done to the rest of the world once Christianity became the religion of Rome. Many of the persecution stories read like romance novels and there is a fair amount of exaggeration and madness. History records Roman judges telling Christians to go home when they reported to them to be put to death. He essentially told them that if they wanted to kill themselves, he wasn't going to help them. Essentially Christians were trying to be martyred because it was seen as a guarantee of heaven. They were a suicide cult in some places.

Here is a draft version of a paper by Gaeme Clarke. This is a summary of Christian persecution. If you read the following link, you can see a record of an actual trial. You can see that the Roman's were more concerned about social order and saw Christians as terrorists and as irrational.

Christians and the Roman State

Quote:

In this section I provide a quick summary--with minimal analysis--of the known clashes between Roman authorities and the Christian communities in the first half of the third century.

'Persecution' of Christians by Roman officials had been in the course of the second century sporadic and unsystematic, and basically local in range, and is best seen in the context of the occasional harassment of many another exotic group equally regarded as deviant (astrologers, soothsayers, magicians and the like). However, Christians had been considered troublesome enough to have been brought to the attention, from time to time, not just of Roman provincial governors or of the Roman urban prefect but on rare occasions of Roman emperors themselves (Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius), so much so that early in the third century Ulpian was able to draw up a register of imperial rescripts (i.e. imperial responses to referrals by provincial governors, possibly responses to complaints or queries by provincial councils etc.) demonstrating the punishments that by then were deemed appropriate for Christian adherents:[1] there was by that date an adequate accumulation of case-histories with imperial authority. But the intermittent and regional nature of the outbreaks needs to be emphasized: Christians were ipso facto potentially on the wrong side of the law but it required local circumstances to realize that potentiality, especially through popular agitation (whether out of religious fervour, or of superstitious fear occasioned by earthquake, drought, flood, plague or famine) or, occasionally, through Christian enthusiastic provocation. In either case it was pressure from below, rather than imperial initiative, that gave rise to troubles, breaching the generally prevailing, but nevertheless fragile, limits of Roman tolerance: the official attitude was passive until activated to confront particular cases and this activation normally was confined to the local and provincial level. There is a strong tendency in later sources to universalize these local outbreaks as the heroisation of the past age of martyrdom gained pace in the post-Constantinian era but there are no solid grounds for concluding that the same pattern did not apply for the first half of the third century as it had throughout the second century.

And throughout this first half of the third century we have to appreciate that this intermittent trouble is brought to our attention by casual evidence: our sources being so fitful, we have to allow that we have but a sample of what Christians may well have experienced elsewhere (thanks to Eusebius, a fundamental source, our view is notoriously biassed towards Eastern evidence). And we have to allow that, additionally, victims belonging to other Christian sects may well have been crowded out of that imperfect record: with martyrdom valued as the supreme sign of the elect, memory of these sectaries was promptly erased in what emerged as the orthodox tradition, in the rush to lay claim to the spiritual high ground of martyrdom. It was of course solemnly and consistently argued by the orthodox that there can be no true martyrdom outside the church. Thus under the Antonines Montanists and Marcionites and other non-orthodox groups could lay claim to 'innumerable martyrs' (ap. Euseb. H.E. 5.16.20f) but typically our knowledge of individuals comes basically in efforts to discredit their spiritual credentials eg. ap. Euseb. H.E. 5.18.5ff (Montanists), Tert. Adv. Prax. 1.4. (Praxeas).

So you see there was a lot of revision of the history to favor one group over another.

If you want to read about how the Christians responded to being persecuted once they got into power you can read the many articles at this link.

The Rise of Christianity 306 to 565

This should provide you lots of material.

[cardw]

Quote:

Can you cite an example that you know of, of gnostic beliefs that were removed from the New Testament? What gnostic view is in the Critical Text?

I'm aware of the gnostic gospels and writings that never were part of Christian beliefs and were rejected for good reasons.

This is a complex history and pathway. Like I said before, the books I mentioned provide the details. There are plenty of examples within them. You need to do a little work here on your own.

[cardw]

Quote:

The Bible says the devils believe and tremble. They don't have saving faith, which is the only kind of faith that really matters. This kind of faith isn't in the majority. It's in the minority. Would you agree?

Well, this has nothing to do with the context of the original statement. I was talking about the religious majority. You can create a minority simply by making the requirements for inclusion more strict. Many Christian groups do this and go out and claim they are being persecuted, when most of it is in their own minds or has nothing to do with their religion, but often their attitude and lack of communication skills.

[John317]

Quote:

Can you cite an example that you know of, of gnostic beliefs that were removed from the New Testament? What gnostic view is in the Critical Text?

I'm aware of the gnostic gospels and writings that never were part of Christian beliefs and were rejected for good reasons.

This is a complex history and pathway. Like I said before, the books I mentioned provide the details. There are plenty of examples within them. You need to do a little work here on your own.

I've done the work on my own. I'm asking you for a few examples. Do you know of any?

[John317]

Quote:

The Bible says the devils believe and tremble. They don't have saving faith, which is the only kind of faith that really matters. This kind of faith isn't in the majority. It's in the minority. Would you agree?

Well, this has nothing to do with the context of the original statement. I was talking about the religious majority. You can create a minority simply by making the requirements for inclusion more strict. Many Christian groups do this and go out and claim they are being persecuted, when most of it is in their own minds or has nothing to do with their religion, but often their attitude and lack of communication skills.

What is the conclusion you arrive at based on your view here that those claiming to be atheists are in the minority?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Quote:

Can you cite an example that you know of, of gnostic beliefs that were removed from the New Testament? What gnostic view is in the Critical Text?

I'm aware of the gnostic gospels and writings that never were part of Christian beliefs and were rejected for good reasons.

This is a complex history and pathway. Like I said before, the books I mentioned provide the details. There are plenty of examples within them. You need to do a little work here on your own.

I've done the work on my own. I'm asking you for a few examples. Do you know of any?

This is really a Red Herring. The answer requires a lot of historical background and the work has already been done by those that I quoted. This is really a minor point anyway. The areas that I have given you evidence, you have simply ignored, so I'm not really inclined to do all the work it requires to set this out for you since its done so well in these books already.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Quote:

The Bible says the devils believe and tremble. They don't have saving faith, which is the only kind of faith that really matters. This kind of faith isn't in the majority. It's in the minority. Would you agree?

Well, this has nothing to do with the context of the original statement. I was talking about the religious majority. You can create a minority simply by making the requirements for inclusion more strict. Many Christian groups do this and go out and claim they are being persecuted, when most of it is in their own minds or has nothing to do with their religion, but often their attitude and lack of communication skills.

What is the conclusion you arrive at based on your view here that those claiming to be atheists are in the minority?

Well, you seem to have the impression that believers are under attack by a majority of faithless people. Most denominations present some form of this paranoia even though Christians are in the majority in this nation. This is an effective way to mobilize the group and to raise money to "fight" the evil world when here in the US the world is formed mostly by Christians.

I'm glad that more people are being freed from the abusive fear based religion that Christianity has perfected through its priestcraft. I find that those who have done the work to really honestly evaluate the evidence tend to be very gentle and ethical people because their interest becomes focused on how we can make the earth we live on right now a better place.

That's my point...

[melvin mccarty]

"There are some on the Forum who believe that a person can be saved while living in sin and that since we are saved by Christ's righteousness, it doesn't matter what we do as long as we "know" Jesus".

Is the above quote accurate? Where are these people?

Melvin McCarty

[John317]

Is the above quote accurate? Where are these people?

Melvin McCarty

The point here is not talk about who has said this but to decide whether the beliefs described are true.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I've done the work on my own. I'm asking you for a few examples. Do you know of any? [/quote']

This is really a Red Herring. The answer requires a lot of historical background and the work has already been done by those that I quoted. This is really a minor point anyway. ..

OK, I just thought since you talked about it, that you could give me some examples.

[melvin mccarty]

Changing horses in midstream now are we? Please prove your assertion if you can. And exactly what does the term "in Christ" mean in your opinion? melvin mccarty

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: melvin mccarty

Is the above quote accurate? Where are these people?

Melvin McCarty

The point here is not talk about who has said this but to decide whether the beliefs described are true.

No need to discuss it if no one believes it.

[Woody]

Changing horses in midstream now are we? Please prove your assertion if you can. And exactly what does the term "in Christ" mean in your opinion? melvin mccarty

Mel. I think this idea ... is just a fabrication . And only one person would know what it means. It is this person's idea and no one else's. IMHO

[John317]

"There are some on the Forum who believe that a person can be saved while living in sin and that since we are saved by Christ's righteousness, it doesn't matter what we do as long as we "know" Jesus".

Is the above quote accurate? Where are these people?

Melvin McCarty

Again, it is not important where these people are, or who they are. What's important is that these ideas have been expressed on the Forum, and I wanted to understand Lineman's response to them.

The following will illustrate the ideas, the ellipses being the original poster's:

Quote:

"By accepting HIM ... we accept His robe of righteouseness and our life is covered and viewed as perfect even though we go on and continue to live in sin. We are saved because we accept Jesus ... not because of any good works or any particular life that we might or might not live."

"We do not have to sin. We will ... but we do have the power to live fruitful lives. But what we DO has no bearing on our Salvation. Our Salvation is secured in what Jesus did."

"Having sins or not having sins ... does not change the issue of Salvation which is based on what Jesus did and not what 'I' do.

So, I hope that each of us do allow ourselves to sin. Jesus does. He died that we might sin and yet still have eternal life."

[Guest truthseeker007]

Card W, i was just wondering...why do you hang out here when you are an atheist? Or do you wake up some days like me, on one day you decide to become an atheist and on the next day you feel like a Christian again. Or are you still seeking truth? I am just wondering, no bad intentions...

[Woody]

Quote:

Or do you wake up some days like me, on one day you decide to become an atheist and on the next day you feel like a Christian again.

TS ... Maybe you rely too much on your feelings. Ever consider this?

What if you made a decison (A commitment) to wake up each morning and be a Christian?

[cardw]

Card W, i was just wondering...why do you hang out here when you are an atheist? Or do you wake up some days like me, on one day you decide to become an atheist and on the next day you feel like a Christian again. Or are you still seeking truth? I am just wondering, no bad intentions...

I am quite sure that I am an atheist as far as the god of the Bible. That doesn't mean that I am closed to the idea of some type of higher power, for lack of a better description. I am agnostic as far as the nature of this power, its goals if any, and its requirements. I think the most honest answer is I don't know and neither does anyone else.

That being said, I also believe that the Christian religion in its fundamental form is abusive and harmful to society. I don't believe that Christians per se are malicious, but their ignorance about the source of their religion has fostered a self perpetuating system of shame and guilt. The religion itself claims to offer a cure to the very condition it causes.

I do believe that truth sets people free and if anyone is set free from this impossible to please god, then the time spent here is worth it.

[Woody]

Quote:

I do believe that truth sets people free and if anyone is set free from this impossible to please god, then the time spent here is worth it.

That sounds similar to Christianity.

Christ would die for just one person and consider it worth it.

[John317]

I do believe that truth sets people free and if anyone is set free from this impossible to please god, then the time spent here is worth it.

Is it, then, part of your design or purpose in being here to set people "free" from God?