Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences


webmdave

Recommended Posts

Yeah, sparkyone, this Japeth guy is not worth the effort it takes to say hello to him. All the same....

 

Ruby: At least you missed the one I am studying at.

 

Japheth: And what one would that be?

Mr. J, so you think after I saw how you ridiculed and mutilated the reputations of all the seminaries and schools of divinity that you listed, you still think I would tell you where I am studying so you can ridicule it too? How naive of you! I'm quite sure if you go through all my posts on this forum that you will find the name somewhere. I don't remember where but I know I've talked about it. It's a real legitimate Christian seminary. You might not consider it legitimate because you seem like those Christians who are very elitist and think only their own brand of Christians is legitimate. I don't buy that. Nowhere will you find more decent people than these people. It's them who convince me that good Christians do exist. You're not one of them.

 

Just going to each one's doctrine of belief you will find that they only believe the Bible in the originals, leaving scholarship to be textual critics of the Bible. None believe that we have today an infallable word. But a book that contains most of the word of God.

 

Oh, I see. You're god. I didn't realize that. You consider yourself qualified to judge what exactly constitutes the Word of God. You cannot even spell correctly in English and cannot make coherent arguments, yet you believe you know more than people who have made it their life mission to study the Bible in its more intricate mysteries and original languages. You consider yourself qualified to judge the innermost thoughts and intentions of their hearts even when you do not even know their names or where they work. I see you have much to learn, O man Japheth, child of the darkened intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Japeth

    62

  • Antlerman

    25

  • NotBlinded

    17

  • Shawn

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

]Just going to each one's doctrine of belief you will find that they only believe the Bible in the originals, leaving scholarship to be textual critics of the Bible. None believe that we have today an infallable word. But a book that contains most of the word of God.

 

Oh, I see. You're god. I didn't realize that. You consider yourself qualified to judge what exactly constitutes the Word of God. You cannot even spell correctly in English and cannot make coherent arguments, yet you believe you know more than people who have made it their life mission to study the Bible in its more intricate mysteries and original languages. You consider yourself qualified to judge the innermost thoughts and intentions of their hearts even when you do not even know their names or where they work. I see you have much to learn, O man Japheth, child of the darkened intellect.

What I am really seeing here is just this: Ignorance to Japheth is justified by using the verses about being like a little child. This is all about them compensating for having limited educations in the face of a modern world. It is anti-intellectualism as its very heart.

 

Japheth is the original fundamentalist in America. Fundamentalism began as a reactionary movement to modernity in the church. Modernity began as a response to the enlightenment in Europe. As their kids went off to college out East, leaving the family back on the farm, the children where exposed to new ideas, new understanding coming out of Europe. When they came back home these new views were too radical a change from just the "simple" gospel that they had grown up with (never mind of course qualifying the validity of that - but at least it was what they knew). So in response to this, they rejected it and tried to get back to the "Old time religion". It's a push back against progress in knowledge and resents "the intellectuals" because they "threaten" the stability of the world they grew up with.

 

I will have to hunt for some of my other posts on this subject, but I mention them because rather than just speaking about the movement in conceptual terms, we have a living example of the most severe form of this reactionary movement here before us. It’s like finding a living dinosaur for examination. So really we should just ask him questions for the sake of analysis in our studies.

 

His views are more about this social phenomenon, rather than theological differences. I’ll see if I can’t dig up some of those other posts to link to in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

]Just going to each one's doctrine of belief you will find that they only believe the Bible in the originals, leaving scholarship to be textual critics of the Bible. None believe that we have today an infallable word. But a book that contains most of the word of God.

 

Oh, I see. You're god. I didn't realize that. You consider yourself qualified to judge what exactly constitutes the Word of God. You cannot even spell correctly in English and cannot make coherent arguments, yet you believe you know more than people who have made it their life mission to study the Bible in its more intricate mysteries and original languages. You consider yourself qualified to judge the innermost thoughts and intentions of their hearts even when you do not even know their names or where they work. I see you have much to learn, O man Japheth, child of the darkened intellect.

What I am really seeing here is just this: Ignorance to Japheth is justified by using the verses about being like a little child. This is all about them compensating for having limited educations in the face of a modern world. It is anti-intellectualism as its very heart.

 

Japheth is the original fundamentalist in America. Fundamentalism began as a reactionary movement to modernity in the church. Modernity began as a response to the enlightenment in Europe. As their kids went off to college out East, leaving the family back on the farm, the children where exposed to new ideas, new understanding coming out of Europe. When they came back home these new views were too radical a change from just the "simple" gospel that they had grown up with (never mind of course qualifying the validity of that - but at least it was what they knew). So in response to this, they rejected it and tried to get back to the "Old time religion". It's a push back against progress in knowledge and resents "the intellectuals" because they "threaten" the stability of the world they grew up with.

 

I will have to hunt for some of my other posts on this subject, but I mention them because rather than just speaking about the movement in conceptual terms, we have a living example of the most severe form of this reactionary movement here before us. It’s like finding a living dinosaur for examination. So really we should just ask him questions for the sake of analysis in our studies.

 

His views are more about this social phenomenon, rather than theological differences. I’ll see if I can’t dig up some of those other posts to link to in here.

 

I can't even count the many, many times I've heard things in the church like, "educated beyond their own intelligence, men die by degrees", and other comments downplaying or ridiculing a good education. They claim that studying at a cemetery (seminary, ha, ha) isn't necessary, only being taught in the local church or by the Holy Spirit. It ruins the faith of many when they go to a secular university, etc. Ruckman said something like, BA, MA, Ph.D means "bunch of applesauce, more applesauce, piled higher and deeper", or Ph.D. means "post-hole digger". I just don't get why the scorn and hatred for intellectuals, unless...I know! they feel threatened by all that knowledge about stuff they know nothing about. They just need the "good old book" and that's all we need for life and happiness. Well, sorry, but don't include me in that group, please. One of the things that has turned me against the church is the scorn of "worldly" knowledge and learning, as well as healthy curiosity or intellectualism. So...that's enough for now.

 

Sparkyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If experience is not based on the Bible then its probaly false, and for music playing in on emotion. this is true that why a Bible believing church should stay as far away from music brought on by the decendants of Ham.

O.K. .... I've been trying to stay out of this thread .... But, Japeth.... I really am interested in an answer here.

 

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?

 

Our new friend, Japeth, appears to be a racist. Interesting.

 

 

This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

This sounds like something Peter Ruckman taught, that African peoples descended from Ham and were somehow cursed. Also, one of the pastors I was under the thumb of growing up didn't even approve of Beethoven because he believed certain music ministered to the soul instead of the spirit, which he disapproved of. I couldn't play certain composers' music on the piano for a recital because of that. How wierd is that? Now I decide what music to play.

 

Sparkyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I found one of the posts I mentioned to Ruby that I'd try to find that looks at what fundamentalism really is about in the modern world, rather than just simply a difference in theology. I'll just post the whole thing in here, as I think you'll find some value in it:

 

Antlerman:

 

excellent post. everything you said about fundamentalist would be correct about me.

So you are acknowledging that at the heart of your fundamentalist approach to faith is a cultural impulse against the modernization of the world’s philosophies, and a nostalgic turning the clock back to the perceived “good ‘ole days”? This is what I said in my previous post. Again, man creates God, or a faith system to reflect their cultural values and support or feed it in order for it to serve as a standard of social order for their values. Again, as I put, we create God and serve Him so he can serve us, “God” being a faith system.

 

This then established, “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” I say undeniably that culture came first, then religion. I get them impression that you think that order is reversed in some inexplicable way, that religion created culture and society out of nothing? Frankly that makes no sense to me, but that’s what it sounds like you’ve said in the past by stated you feel religion or governments create the society. I cannot agree with you on any level. Though it’s true religion or government enforces the rules of a culture, it’s the culture that “hired” that religion or government to do this for them. The culture adopted that system they wanted and collectively follow its rules by choice.

 

The point I am making is that cultures and societies are made up of all sorts of values from all sorts of places. The culture and values of your society in Mississippi did not originate from, nor follow the society of the New Testament. They are cultural values you participate in and which influence your world view, just as the culture of my region influences certain values that differ from yours. Now here’s the crux of it, your values are NOT those of Apostle Paul, Peter, Jesus, James, or whoever, any more than mine are; any more than those in Ohio; any more than those in Kansas; any more than those in China, Korea, Australia, India, Pakistan, or Rome itself!

 

No, what you have are the values of your culture believing that those are the “true” teaching, original values of the adopted symbols of their faith. They then hold these “models” up, sticking their own spin of culture values on them with the blessing of divine sanction on them, and use them as a tool to promote, teach, and ensure their own adopted cultural values are maintained. “God” is being used to serve them.

 

Your “truth” is only valid for those it has meaning for. It is a veiled fundamental “truth”, that will not be reality for everyone. It’s a belief it is “the Truth” for the purpose of empowerment, but it doesn’t stand up to examination under that literal expectation. Its ultimate “truth” is that it’s a particular culture’s idea of its own “truth” only.

 

would i be correct to say the basis for a fundy would be that they think they are the only ones correct in thier religous beliefs. i think this is what i am catching from this in a nutshell.

It’s not the “basis” for being a fundi. A desire for to retard or halt social progress is, however it is a feature of fundamentalist beliefs. What I said in the last two paragraphs shows why people hold these sorts of reactionary beliefs to be the only truth, it’s because it empowers it to serve their chosen culture as an authoritative standard.

 

 

when you look at religions on a whole, i did think the reason for the decline in christianity worldwide was due to it's strict nature. i was under the impression this is why the european churches failed. but when you look at muslims, i find it much more demanding and strict than my religion. yet it has grown tremendously.

No. The idea that Christianity worldwide is in decline is a fallacy. Worldwide it has been on the increase over the last several decades, and Fundamentalist Protestantism is predicted to surpass world-wide Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. It’s growing the most quickly in South America, Asia, and Africa where functioning governments, social programs, etc are barely hanging together. Fundamentalism offers promise of order, promise of answers and this is extremely appealing to people in those situations. Of course, we in the G8 nations know what a crock of crap this is.

 

What you are seeing is from a cultural bias as a North American. In the industrialized G8 trading nations, with health care, public education, functioning governments, highly intelligent, educated people are not buying into Christianity, and it’s become a culture war between those who say “thanks, but no thanks”, what they call “the rise of secularism”, and the extremists who think that everything they say is the right way.

 

This is heart of our conversation we are having, and at the heart of every conversation on this web forum.

 

What “Culture” is, is your upbringing, your moral center, your identity. Our cultural bias in North America has had the luxury of a huge middle class that all think and act the same way, and from there, we all assume that everyone thinks like us! We created an industrialized nation, that once we were rich enough, we turned to ourselves and said, “We need to better ourselves, everyone needs a better wage, etc.” In the last 50 years we have been lulled in to complacency that this is the way things should be, but now that middle class has been dissolving, changing. That’s why we have this Christian Fundamentalist backlash!

 

Being in an industrialized nation brings a higher level of education and knowledge. With education comes the realization of choices. When people have too many choices they become confused. Then comes nostalgia; the pining for days of ignorance, the desire for simplicity. It’s a human impulse.

 

Take ordering from a menu. If there’s too many choices people become frustrated and generally opt for the places with simpler choices on the menu. Why do you think you see a herd of SUVs all corralling into the drive through at McDonald’s at lunch time? McDonald’s is bad food on every level! It is consistently bad, BUT it is predictable, and predictability is extremely important to people.

 

The truth is our prevailing culture is a culture of consumerism. We use it to drive our economic system. This culture, gives us a sense of how smart we are because of all our choices. We entertain ourselves by going to shopping malls (which by the way is why you see Churches popping up in the malls now. It’s where all the people have gone! :grin: ). But the illusion is that though we like that sense of choice, we don’t know how to handle it. So what the marketing geniuses focus on is mediocrity. It’s all shitty, but they're full of choices. Mediocrity sells. It’s cheap, plentiful and available year round. Same thing dressed up differently and called choice. It gives people a sense of reward; that we figured it out. “I found a really great deal”. It is all driven by the middle class. It has totally impacted our society.

 

Fundamentalism is the fast food of the religious world. It’s cheap, easy to read menus, and it appeals to our sense of choice, but it is crap food. It’s tasteless processed potatoes out of the grey, chemical-soaked soil of the industrial French Fries! It’s intellectually devoid of real substance and flavor. What you are seeing in happening in our society is moderate Christian churches failing here in the States and in Europe. People are getting secular. Their needs are being met in other ways: social circles, philosophies, arts, and other forms of spirituality. American and European churches are struggling with keeping up with changes in our cultures. The reality is that in the U.S., the most radical forms of fundamental/evangelicalism are not really on the rise, but they are becoming a louder voice as the middle in imploding.

 

Just this week here in the Twin Cities an evangelical pastor of his mega-church over in St. Paul got sick and tired of those in his congregation coming to him to promote some Republican political agenda from the pulpit, refusing to allow them to set up Pro-Life tables in the lobby, introduce Republican candidates, announce an anti-gay rallies, etc. He stated that the church should not get entangled in politics and that the message should be religious in nature.

 

Here’s the point freeday, many of the most vocal political in his church were terribly offended and called him a compromiser of truth, etc, and drug off 1000 people out of the church, BUT 4000 people remained and were sighing relief that something was finally said!! So what you and I see in this country is an illusion that this face of the evangelicals is really getting bigger and bigger. It is really more just the few being more and more vocal and political.

 

There is some growth into Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism from those leaving the imploding middle, but this is not because it offers the answers to them, but simply more a place to go for the time being until the middle can find itself again spiritually in a modern, educated society. It Christianity in the industrialized nations cannot find itself, then eventually Christianity will become increasing less and less a part of the industrialized nations, as it continues to grow exponentially in the 3rd world.

 

Essentially you cannot compare what happens here in the States directly with the history of Europe, or with the growth patterns in the non-industrialized nations.

 

Now, in light of all this, “The Truth” is really not as simple as we would hope it to be, is it? Fundamentalism, getting back to the original, is an impossibility. It is an utter illusion. “The Truth” is a total fallacy. It is all about cultures and societies struggling to define themselves by various means in a civilized world. There is no simple truth. The promises of the fundamentalist is the McDonald's cheese burger to the complexity of life in an industrialized society, and the tragic illusion of stability and answers to those struggling in the 3rd world, being preyed upon by the missionaries.

 

Now the big question. Then what is the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
(pssst....We have boring lives and this is our idea of excitement.)

 

 

:funny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

The Debil anticipated Christianity and created a false version of it BEFORE Christ came just to fool everyone.

 

I actually learned that a long time ago in church. And I read it in some apologetic publications. If I'm not mistaken, it was KJV Only's teaching it. :banghead:

 

It's hilarious. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.

 

Define "ancient". And provide proof for this statement.

 

Edit:

 

You know what? Never fucking mind. I just read the rest of this thread. You pull "history" either from your own ass, or from someone else's. You make statements of "fact" without bothering to fact-check. Your understanding is limited and you are perfectly happy to uphold those limits and attempt to inflict them on others.

 

You aren't here to learn. And you're racist. Are you sexist too? Don't bother answering. I really don't give a shit about the muck in your head.

 

You just keep staying rooted in place while the rest of the world moves forward.

 

Buh-Bye

 

 

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hell does this have to do with what he just said?

I was wondering that myself!

 

Japeth, I know it's hard for you to think outside of that little box you have confined yourself to, but can you for once use a little common sense and ask why would Judas be seen as a devil if it was God's will that Jesus be betrayed?

 

He know everything before it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if you where a true Christian you would have had an authority to compare fakers with. But it seems as though you chose the skeptic route.

 

How disappointing to see Dave's well written and thought out post followed by some version of "you were never a true christian to begin with". So typical.

 

Japedo, I am sure that the Charismatic christians would agree with you, because since Dave left they will therefore fall into the explanation that he was not a real christian. On the other hand, I am sure they would disagree with your assessment of their faith as not being "real" christianity and may even think your version is "dead". Since I spent the 23 years of my christianity in different forms of christianity, I can say that every denomination thinks itself to have the "real christian truth" and the others to be fakers to some degree.

 

Also, Japedo, I was converted as an actual "little child"... I was 7 years old. Can not get any more childlike mentally than actually being a child. My conversion was also in a baptist church, no charismatic stuff involved. In fact, my parents were not even christians, so I did not have a home influence until my father converted when I was 10 and remarried a christian woman. So how was my conversion not "real", please tell me.

 

It certainly sad to see you leave the Christian faith, and what piont did you reject Jesus Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

 

I have a question Japeth. Book of Jude. Tell me about it. This shouldn't take long, being it's one page.

 

 

Shawn

Theres alote there what do you want to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather, Japeth believes that the KJV is the originals. It's not inspired by God, but just as the originals were guilded by the very hands of God himself, so were the men who translated the KJV. It's not a translation to him. The KJV are the original Word's of God, all others are counterfeit.

 

Japeth,

 

You do know that all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are very, very different from each other. They don't even say the same things. There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

You also may not be aware that many of them are forgeries. Forgeries were very common back then. Writing a letter and pretending to be someone else, in order to get your ideas across was very common. There are many letters that were not written by Paul, that say they are. Some of these letters, that are forgeries and were not written by Paul, are even in the King James Version.

 

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson02.htm

 

We can see this principle of preservation of both the text and the translation of the New Testament itself. In Paul's letter to Timothy, the Apostle makes reference to the holy scriptures:

 

 

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Tim. 3:15-17)

 

Here, Paul tells Timothy that he has known the holy scriptures ever since he was a child. Yet, we must recognize that all Timothy had were copies and translations of the original Hebrew texts. Young Timothy did not have access to the original autographs of any of the Old Testament writers. In the preservation of God, Paul refers to these copies as holy scriptures. It would be unbiblical of us to think less of the word of God today.

 

How unfortunate that we find ourselves in a debate over this issuewith born-again Christian scholars and teachers. When we say, "Thy word is very pure," the born-again translator says of translations, "None is perfect, but the poorest is better than none." (Jack Lewis, The English Bible, 1981, p. 365).

 

The real difference lies in the approach taken. The passage in Timothy states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The tense of this verse demonstrates the difference between the Bible-believing Christian and modern scholarship. The Bible-believer agrees that all scripture IS given. The modern conservative scholar believes it WAS given. It is our conviction that God used the correct tense, and that the modern scholar is incorrect.

 

There are many issues which arise concerning the preservation of Scripture. Several of these will be covered in the upcoming lessons. We will look at the various lines of manuscripts and a history of both Biblical preservation and those who sought to correct it (2 Corinthians 2:17). We will also note several of the differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version. We will discuss text types and bring to light the debate concerning the differences in texts. We will also observe some of the argumentation raised by modern scholars and address their concerns. However, we must first lay a foundation of basic understanding in regard to textual criticism. It is with that purpose in mind that we begin this lesson.

 

ANCIENT TEXTS:

The Bible was not originally written in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. However, we no longer have any of these original manuscripts. The attempt to reconstruct what was originally given is the study of textual criticism.

 

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing. To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 9,000 manuscripts of ancient translations of the New Testament. Where these manuscripts disagree, it is called a textual variance. For the purpose of this class, we are concerned with the manuscripts and their variance as they relate to the New Testament.

 

It is important to make basic definitions of terms. This will allow the student to comprehend what is communicated and recognize when others are using terms improperly.

 

By originals or autographs we do not mean copies. We mean what was originally penned by the original writers of the Old and New Testaments. We no longer have any of these autographs. Only copies remain.

 

By manuscripts we mean handwritten copies of the originals or copies of copies. They are written by hand and thus called manuscripts. They may be whole books, portion of books, or fragments.

 

Greek Texts does not mean the original Greek nor does it mean the Greek manuscripts. It means a Greek New Testament that has been reconstructed by various manuscripts and other sources. Since manuscripts differ, and sources disagree, we have a variety of Greek Texts. Some of these are Stephanus Greek Text, Beza's Greek Text, Elzevir's Greek Text, Westcott and Hort Greek Text, Nestle's Greek Text, and the United Bible Society's Greek Text.

 

The history of New Testament manuscripts is divided, roughly, into three periods: papyrus, vellum, and paper. The manuscripts we have were written on one of these three, and often reflect the date of the manuscript.

 

Papyrus is made from the papyrus plants, which grew in abundance in Egypt. The inner bark of the plant was cut into thin strips and were laid side by side and then crossed with other strips. They were then pressed together and sun dried. The papyrus was, for the most part, written only on one side and bound together in rolls. The custom was to write in very narrow columns that had no separation of words, accents marks, or punctuation. So, Philippians 1:1-2 would read something like this:

 

PAULANDTIMOTHEUSTHESERVANTSOFJESUSCHRISTTOALLTHESAINTS

INCHRISTJESUSWHICHAREATPHIPIPPIWITHTHEBISHOPSANDDEACONS

GRACEBEUNTOYOUANDPEACEFROMGODOURFATHERANDFROMTHELORD

JESUSCHRIST

 

(Just as a side note, one can see from this example that the early scribes were not concerned with making an easy to read translation or text of the Bible.)

 

Paragraphs were marked with a line in the margin of the text. A line in the margin meant a new paragraph was beginning. (The Greek word para means beside, and the Greek word graph means writing. Thus, paragraph.) The papyrus manuscripts are very fragile. Most of what we have are fragments. This period lasted until the seventh century.

 

Next, we have the manuscripts written on vellum (or in some cases on parchment). This covers the period from about the end of the third century to the fifteenth century. The narrow columns that were used in the papyrus manuscripts were maintained in the vellum manuscripts. Vellum are dried animal skins which were cut into leaves and formed into a book. In textual criticism, a book is called a codex. Some vellum manuscripts maintain the same style of writing used in papyrus manuscripts. This style is referred to as uncials, which consists of all capital letters written without accent marks, punctuation, or separation of words or sentences. Later, around the ninth century, the use of small letters with spacing between words was used. These manuscripts are referred to as minuscules or cursive.

 

Manuscripts written on paper cover from about the fourteenth century to the present. Up until this period, it was rare to have a complete Bible in one book. Most of the papyrus and vellum manuscripts are fragments, passages, or maybe a book of the New Testament. But, in the thirteenth century whole books containing all or most of the New Testament became common.

 

SOURCES FOR NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS:

There are three classes of evidence used by textual critics in the reconstruction of the New Testament. (I use the term reconstruction because it is a term used by textual critics. However, I personally do not believe the New Testament needs to be reconstructed in the common use of the word because I do not believe it was ever lost.)

 

First, the main source for reconstructing the New Testament comes from Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts exist in the forms listed above. There are variances in all Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts are classified into one of four families, or textual types.

 

1) The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire because it is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. Most manuscripts are of this family. In fact, there are far more manuscripts of this type than of the other three combined. For this reason the family is sometimes called the Majority Text. This line of manuscripts would also reflect the Greek Texts used to translate the King James Bible. This textual line is also called the Traditional Text.

 

2) The Alexandrian Text. The name comes from Alexandria, Egypt, where most of these texts were prepared by scribes. It is from this family of manuscripts most modern version are based. The three main manuscripts of this family are Alexandrinus (5th century), Sinaiticus (4th century), and Vaticanus (4th century).

 

3) The Western Text. There is a debate among scholars if this is a real family of manuscripts or not. Some believe it reflects a different family. Others believe the differences are so minor that they do not deserve a classification of their own.

 

4) The Caesarean Text. This family seems to be a mixture of the above family of manuscripts. Some believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and brought to Caesarea. Because it is a mixture, some question if this also should be classified as a family.

 

For the most part, therefore, there are two main families of manuscripts. It is the differences between these two lines that make for the majority of the difference in modern translations and the King James Version. When one takes the Textus Receptus, which was based on the Byzantine line of manuscripts, and compares it with the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which was based on the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, there are close to 6,000 differences within the two Greek Texts. This is roughly 10% of the text.

 

The second source for making a Greek Text comes from ancient versions. Since these versions were translated from something, they are used as a source for establishing a Greek Text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there are a variety of ancient versions, and not all of these agree. Among these are the Old Latin versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome's Latin Vulgate), Syrian (including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian), Gothic (early German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful because they not only had to have a source for their translation, but also show what the non-Greek reading world used.

 

The third source comes form the quotations of the early Church Fathers. These are called Patristic citations. When the theological writers of the first few centuries quoted scripture, their quotations are used. Again, we have a difference in several of the quotations, showing that from the very start there were differences in New Testament texts. More will be given about some of the early Church Fathers in later lessons.

 

Of course, this is something the Bible-believer recognizes. Paul warned that "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (2 Corinthians 2:17). And again, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2). There have always been those who sought to corrupt the incorruptible word of God. And, like Satan, questions and quotes scripture dishonestly for their own gain (Genesis 3:1; Matthew 4:6). This is not to say all the early church theologians or manuscripts are corrupt. It is to say that we can not trust any one of these sources as the final authority. Instead, we must depend upon the providence of God to preserve His words without error and then demonstrate where this preserved word is.

 

Other sources would be lectionaries and apocryphal writings. Lectionaries were books used by the early church which contained lessons and hymns. There were also citations from passages of scripture. These would show that certain scriptures were in use at a given time, and substantiate a questioned text.

 

Apocryphal writings would be citations from books contemporary with the New Testament but were not inspired. Often they quote scripture. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples.

 

The King James Bible reads, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10). Most modern versions read as the New American Standard Version: "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians quotes the verse, "And must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (2:18). Rather Polycarp wrote this letter or not we do not know. We do know that manuscripts of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians date to 150 AD. Thus we have a second century reading supporting the textual variant in favor of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version of 1611.

 

The same is true of 1 John 4:3--"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Modern versions leave out the phrase "is come in the flesh." Again, in Polycarp to the Philippians 3:1 we read, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is antichrist." We can see that the writer of this book agreed with the rendering of the King James Bible.

 

Another example using Polycarp comes form 1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil." Modern versions read,"a root." But Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, 2:5, reads, "But the love of money is the root of all evil." There are many other examples, but these illustrate the point.

 

VIEWS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM:

For the purposes of this class, there are three main views concerning textual criticism. They are listed as follows. 1) Modern Textual Criticism. 2) The Traditional Text. 3) The King James Bible as the Preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people.

 

 

Modern Textual Criticism:

To say most textual critics hold to modern textual theories would be a vast understatement. Almost all who study textual criticism support the modern approach. Thus, this is the view of modern scholars, rather conservative, moderate, or liberal. Basically there are two fundamental principles to this approach of textual criticism; the age of known existing manuscripts and the use of eclecticism.

 

In the past 150 years several manuscripts have been found which pre-dated existing manuscripts. The famed manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus date to the forth century. They were discovered and used in the 1800's. Some papyrus date before the forth century. For example P52 dates to early second century, and P66 dates to around 200 AD.

 

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are questionable as they have added passages and books to the contexts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, while omitting other portions of scripture. Sinaiticus contains most of the Old Testament and all of the New (except for Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and some other verses). The Old Testament Apocrypha books are contained in Sinaiticus laced within the Testament as part of the sacred text. It also contains some New Testament Apocrypha books as part of the New Testament text. For example it contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermans as scripture. Vaticanus does likewise with Apocrypha books in both Testaments as part of the Biblical text. (Vaticanus has Matthew through Hebrews 9:14. The remainder of the NT is missing.)

 

Codex Bezae (which is also called D and dates between 450 to 550 AD) adds to the text. One, of the many exampes, is found in Luke 6:5, "On that day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he (i.e. Jesus) said to him, Man, if you know what you are doing, blessed are you. But if not, cursed are you and a transgressor of the law." (Dr. Kenneth Clark, The Transmission of the New Testament as found in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 12; 1980, p. 623). These type of additions are found throughout various manuscripts within the Alexandrian and Western line. And, it is from these manuscripts that many of the changes and revisions within both the Greek and English New Testament are based.

 

Age may not be the determining factor in the authenticity of a given manuscript. Manuscripts which are not used would naturally last longer than manuscripts where were used. Also, most of the papyrus manuscripts we have come from Egypt and reflect the Alexandrian Text. The climate of Egypt is more conducive than the climate of other places in the world for keeping old documents. Most of the Gnostic Gospels come from manuscripts found in Egypt. Many of the supporters of the Traditional Text (such as Edward F. Hills, Zane Hodges, Robert Wilson, Peter Ruckman, and David Otis Fuller) have stated or suggested that Gnosticism influenced the philosophy of the scribes copying the manuscripts in Egypt. Gnosticism is known as an ancient heresy, teaching that all that is spiritual is good and all that is physical is evil. The heresy also suggests that since Jesus was created, and all that is physical is evil, Christ was not coming back in the flesh. This is the false doctrine which John addresses in his first epistle. Thus manuscripts coming from Egypt are questionable.

 

 

The Traditional Text:

What has been called the Majority Text is based on this view of textual criticism, as is the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus ). Until the publishing of textual scholars, such as Westcott and Hort, this view was the main view. In fact, one could argue until the early 1800's it was the only view, at least where Protestant scholarship is concerned. Dr. Kurt Aland (of the Aland Greek NT and the Institute for NT Textual Research) wrote:

 

Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original text.' Close beside it there was Luther's translation of the New Testament which in practice frequently enjoyed the same esteem, although there were differences between its various editions, just as there were for the Greek text. ("The Text of the Church?" in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987. p.131).

 

Critics of the Traditional Text cite that this lane of manuscripts is recent and not reflective of early manuscripts. It is true that the majority of all Greek manuscripts date after 1000 AD, but to insinuate that there is no textual support for this line before 1000 AD is absurd and without informative substance. The Chester Beatty Papyri (P. 45, 46, and 66) all have readings that reflect the Traditional Text against all other line of manuscripts. These papyri date to the early third century. Codex W dates from the fourth to early fifth century. It contains the Gospels, yet uses several of the various lines of manuscripts. While most of Mark and part of John reflect the Alexandrian and Western lines, "(all of) Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:25 are Byzantine (Traditional text)" (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 281). Even Codex A (i.e. Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD) reflects the Traditional Text in the Gospels, leaving the Epistles to reflect the Alexandrian line. And, of course, the early translations such as the Peshitta (second century) and the Gothic (dating around 350 AD) also reflect the Traditional Text over against the Alexrandian Text. In fact, Sir Fredric Kenyon, noted textual scholar, has stated that the Gothic version represents the type of text, "which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts" (Handbook To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament by Kenyon, p. 240).

 

The best manuscripts are the ones which have been traditionally used by Bible believing Christians throughout the years, and the vast majority of all existing manuscripts reflect this type of manuscript. These manuscripts were used to produce the King James Bible and reflects the history of early Protestantism and Reformation. Additionally, many of the old early translations agree with this line of manuscripts, as do some very early papyrus manuscripts.

 

The question has been asked, why would God allow the majority of manuscripts to be of this line if it is incorrect, while only a handful of manuscripts reflect the views of modern textual critics? (Such was the question raised by Dr. John Burgon). We would also ask; If this line is the wrong line of manuscripts, why would God allow born-again Christians to use this line and suffer persecution, while giving to those who were persecuting the true Church the correct line? Is that consistent with the nature of God? If those who were persecuting the Church had the correct line of manuscripts, why did they prohibit it from being translated for so many years, even hiding it from their own people? If the Traditional line of manuscripts is not the correct line, why has God so greatly blessed this line and the translations of the Traditional Text throughout the history of the Church? Would not God bear witness to which is good and which is corrupt? (Matthew 7:15-20)

 

 

The King James Version View:

This view draws most of its textual support form the Traditional Text, since the Greek Text which underlined the King James Version came from the Traditional Text.

 

The view covers preservation, final authority, and the Sovereignty of God. The view states that the Authorized Version is the preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. It stands as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice without any proven error. The Sovereign hand of God can be seen in using this version to bring revival and reform.

 

This view begins with a basis of Scriptural promises. Namely, that God would keep and preserve His words. (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23). Preservation would mean more than a general term. It would mean that God kept all of His words without error, and that these words are preserved in a book which can be read and tested. Throughout church history God has kept His words, and since 1611 for English-speaking people, it is found in the Authorized Version.

 

The information in this lesson will provide the student with a basic munderstanding of some of the terms used in the study of textual criticism, and in our study of the King James Bible and its text. Additional information will be provided in time as we look more closely at opposing views in this study. In our next lesson we will cover some of the differences in the Greek texts as reflected in various English translations.

 

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS:

In our first lesson, I called this section Problem Passages. I think it would be better to call this section Questions From Students, in that some of the questions received deal with areas other than problem passages. Such is the following question.

 

"I love the KJV of the Bible and it's all I use. My one question would be about the new KJ21 ... do you know about it ... what do you think ... are there any specific problems with it? Thank you."

 

All I can offer is my opinion. I do not own a copy of the KJ21, so I had to borrow one from my library. My observations, therefore, are not in-depth. KJ21 stands for the 21st Century King James Version. It was published in 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc. in Gary, SD. This is not a new translation or revision of the King James Bible. Instead, it takes the text of the KJV and seeks to update some of the words considered outdated. This was the same thing Porter Barrington did with his Christian Life New Testament.Words like minish become diminish and prevent become precede.It keeps archaic words which are still understandable to modern readers, such as "thee, thou, hath, art, cometh, and hast."

 

The text is not presented in column verse form as most King James Version's of the Bible are. Instead it is presented in paragraph form like many modern versions have been. Some verses are placed in bold print because they denote "the most powerful, most familiar, best loved, and most often quoted and memorized." (from KJ21, p. v). It also contains an appendix which I was glad to see. The KJ21 has added the original Preface to the KJV entitled The Translators to the Reader (presented in an updated and abridged form).

 

 

The editors of the KJ21 states:

 

For your ease of reading, we have replaced obsolete and archaic words by the most exact modern synonyms, painstakingly chosen so as to insure no change in meaning. For example, the word gins has been replaced by traps; bewray by betray; stablish by establish; dehort by dissuade; reins by inmost being; minish by diminish; wist by knew; listed by pleased; carefully by intricately. These are only a few examples among many. (Preface, p. ix)

 

I can say that this statement, and the examples used, cause me some alarm. First, if these are "only a few examples among many" I wonder what the other changes are. What are the "many"? It is my nature to be skeptical when men take it upon themselves to alter God's word. Even when the motivation is to clarify, sometimes context is compromised. In times past, I have been told that modern version simply revise the "obsolete and archaic words" in the Authorized Version; only to find that the text has been changed or words and verses omitted. I was told the New Scofield Reference Bible simply updated many of the "archaic words" of the King James, but did not change the text; then discovered that this was not true. (Such as in Daniel 3:25 where the KJV states "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." The NSRB reads "a son of the gods," thus taking Christ out of the fiery furnace). And so it was with the New King James Version, changing the text while claiming it was a King James Bible. I alway become skeptical when I am lied to.

 

Secondly, I have noticed that when others care for my "ease of reading" and revise the text with "no change in meaning," that it does in fact change. Even though it may surprise some, God is not concerned with my "ease of reading." Instead, He expects me to study and search it out for myself (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 25:2; John 5:39). Otherwise, our Lord never would have taught in parables. He did not do so to make it easy or to illustrate, He did it, "because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13 and context).

 

Thirdly, once the words have been changed, the meaning is changed. We approach our study of the Bible with the attitude of "what does it mean?". God's attitude in scripture has always been, "what does it say." What God says is more important than what we think it means.

 

Finally, once you change the words, you have destroyed the cross-reference. We study and understand scripture in light of scripture. The word sheds light on the word. If words are replaced with modern words, our cross-reference has been rendered ineffective. One of the examples given by the editors of the KJ21 is that reins has been changed to inmost being. The word reins appears 15 times in the KJV. Of these, only 6 times has it been changed to inmost being (Ps. 26:2; 73:21; Prov. 23:16; Jeremiah. 12:2; 17:10; 20:12. Instead it appears as loins (Job 16:13), heart (Job 19:27), souls (Ps. 7:9), inner self (Ps. 16:7), reins (Ps. 139:13; and Isaiah11:5), passions (Jeremiah. 11:20), inmost parts (Lam. 3:13), and thoughts (Revelation 2:23). One could argue that these words mean the same thing most of the time. But then we are back to "what it means" instead of "what it says." If I want to see how God uses the English word reins in His Book, I will have trouble doing so in the KJ21.

 

Another concern is found in Acts 7:45. The King James Bible reads, "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;" Here, the KJ21 has changed the text to read "which also our fathers, who came later, brought with Joshua into the territory of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David."

 

This is an example of the editors disregarding what the text says, and translating what they think it means. This is not updating "obsolete and archaic words," unless they think Jesus is either obsolete or archaic in this passage. Nor is this a clarification of Greek. The Greek word used is Iesou (which is the genitive form of Iesous; the Greek word for Jesus. ) If one is reading the Greek text (any Greek text) it would read just as the King James Bible reads. Nor, is the KJ21 consistent in its changing of the text when the editors believe the word Iesou should be Joshua. In Hebrews 4:8 the same Greek word is used and revised as Joshua in modern versions of the Bible (such as the NASV, NIV, and NRSV). Yet, the KJ21 renders the passage "For if Jesus had given them rest, then He would not afterwards have spoken of another day." If Iesou in Acts 7:45 means Joshua, then why not translate it as Joshua in Hebrews 4:8? (The real truth is that the Holy Spirit, in Greek or in the English of the KJV, shows no difference because Joshua of old is a picture of Jesus; in that Joshua is a type of the second coming of Jesus Christ leading the nation of Israel into the promised land).

 

I am sure there are other examples and passages where the KJ21 falls short of its predecessor. However, that will be up to the student to research and locate additional examples.

 

I am not sure that the KJ21 will make a great deal of difference. Those who wish to revise or change the Authorized Version are never satisfied with what they have accomplished. This is why we have had so many versions and revisions over the past one hundred years. We have been told that some versions are given to make the Bible stronger in its text. So out comes the RV, ASV, RSV, ASV, Amp., NASV, and so on, only to fall out of favor within a few years and replaced with a newer version or revision. We have also been told that some versions are given to simplify the meaning of the Bible. So out comes the TEV, NIV, NRSV, TLB, Phillips, and so on. One wonders how many times it needs to be made simple.

 

I do not believe the KJ21 will be effective. Those who stand for the preservation of the word of God will not use it as their main Bible. Those wishing for an easy to read version will still use the NIV (which is revised every five years) or one of its kind. Sooner or later we will begin to understand that the Bible is God's Book, and if there is to be any revision or retranslating, it will be up to God to bring it to pass. And if He ever does, He will testify to it as He has the Authorized Version for the past four hundred years.

 

Until later, God bless as you labor for Him.

 

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Thomas Holland

Psalm 118:8

 

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!

 

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson02.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

Please what? The stories that are in the bible were adopted by Christians. Just as the candy cane was (now that one's a hoot!)

 

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

MITHRAISM -- A Historical Introduction:

 

"For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 3000 BCE in Persia, which was moved west and became imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. There is mention of Mithra or Mitra (et al) before 2800, but only as a minor diety and without much information. It appears to be after 2800 BCE when Mithra is transformed and starts to play a major role among the gods. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world."

 

Bold is mine for you attention.

 

And this is what you want to do when you don't want to break any laws: Mithraism & Christianity

 

Oh...and this is a good one here:

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

There is a conspiracy, a cosmic conspiracy which has been at work since the beginning of this world. The leader of that conspiracy is Satan. Satan would have it that he would be God. This has always been Satan's ultimate goal.

 

When Satan and his angels saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took into themselves the daughters of man and had children, these were giants according to the written word.

 

Satan, was worshipped as a god. His angels were worshipped as gods. These were known as Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, Mars, Ares, Mithra, Chiune, Remphan, etc.

 

 

 

 

It was Satan's fallen angels which had rebelled against the High God of Heaven, & which taught man all of the evil which will virtually destroyed all Godly morality on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

The Debil anticipated Christianity and created a false version of it BEFORE Christ came just to fool everyone.

 

I actually learned that a long time ago in church. And I read it in some apologetic publications. If I'm not mistaken, it was KJV Only's teaching it. :banghead:

 

It's hilarious. :lmao:

Yes, it was Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) who posited the following:

 

The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86)

Ironic how Christians still think like this today. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

Please what? The stories that are in the bible were adopted by Christians. Just as the candy cane was (now that one's a hoot!)

 

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

MITHRAISM -- A Historical Introduction:

 

"For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 3000 BCE in Persia, which was moved west and became imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. There is mention of Mithra or Mitra (et al) before 2800, but only as a minor diety and without much information. It appears to be after 2800 BCE when Mithra is transformed and starts to play a major role among the gods. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world."

 

Bold is mine for you attention.

 

And this is what you want to do when you don't want to break any laws: Mithraism & Christianity

 

Oh...and this is a good one here:

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

There is a conspiracy, a cosmic conspiracy which has been at work since the beginning of this world. The leader of that conspiracy is Satan. Satan would have it that he would be God. This has always been Satan's ultimate goal.

 

When Satan and his angels saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took into themselves the daughters of man and had children, these were giants according to the written word.

 

Satan, was worshipped as a god. His angels were worshipped as gods. These were known as Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, Mars, Ares, Mithra, Chiune, Remphan, etc.

 

 

 

 

It was Satan's fallen angels which had rebelled against the High God of Heaven, & which taught man all of the evil which will virtually destroyed all Godly morality on earth.

 

this will be a more clear discription of where Mithra and the false Gods originated

 

Fascinating Truths

A Collection of Expository Sermons on Unusual Bible Doctrines

James W. Knox

 

First Printing, 2003

Copyright © by James W. Knox

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the United States of America

All Scripture quotations are from the Authorized (King James) Version. Where portions of a verse are set forth in block capital letters, it is for the purpose of the author’s emphasis and does not represent a revision in the text.

James Knox’s works are free to reproduce and distribute; however, you may only charge for the price of materials. No profit may be made from his work.

 

 

 

Giants in the Earth

A question has been raised concerning the identity of the “sons of God” in the Old Testament. Another question was asked concerning Daniel 2:43. Since the answers to these two questions are united, we will use both as the basis for this lesson.

 

First, let us look at the verse in Daniel. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

 

The head of gold was interpreted for us as representing Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian kingdom. The arms of silver were said to stand for the kingdom of Media-Persia. The torso of brass was set forth as the symbol of the Grecian kingdom. And it is understood that the legs of iron represented the Roman Empire.

 

When we read down to verse 43, we conclude from the context of the passage that the mixture of iron and clay is symbolic of a kingdom. God says the iron is a “they.” The iron, thus, stands for a people who will mingle themselves with the clay. The clay is defined as the seed of men. Therefore, iron and clay are separate and distinct.

 

From the same passage we also learn that whoever is ruling on this earth in the last kingdom, before Jesus Christ comes again, will be a mingling of “they” with the seed of men.

 

Let us see if we can find out the identify of this last ruling empire. The key to the mystery is found in verse 40, where the end of the verse says: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and BRUISE. The word bruise is the springboard to tell us where to go in our search.

 

Genesis 3:14-15 says, And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall BRUISE thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

God told us in Genesis 3:15 that the serpent, who is defined in the chapter as being Satan, has a seed, and that the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, will have a conflict with the seed of the serpent. We also learn that the Lord Jesus Christ, by bruising the head of the serpent, will also be bruising the seed of the serpent.

 

We are told in Daniel 2 that when the stone was cut out without hands and descended to this earth, and that when He (the stone, Jesus Christ) smashed the kingdom that was part iron and part clay, He would be bruising “them.” The reference, Bible with Bible, is to the seed or offspring of the serpent.

 

Now turn to Job chapter one. We have a term in our Bible that is often misunderstood, that term being son of God. This term is always a reference to a creature that is sinless at the time of its creation. Thus, we have a number of different groups or individuals referred to as a son or the sons of God:

 

Angels;

Adam;

The nation of Israel;

Jesus Christ;

The born again Christian.

Job 1:6 states, Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Who are the sons of God in this passage? Adam was long gone. Israel was not yet a nation. Jesus Christ had not appeared, and thus there were no born again Christians. This can only be a reference to angels.

 

For confirmation, refer to Job 38:4-7. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? When God originally created the earth all the sons of God shouted for joy. At the time of God’s original creation (Genesis 1), all the sons of God were with Him, on His side, shouting for joy at the glory manifest in His creation.

 

Now turn to Isaiah 43. In the future, Israel will be born again in one day. Of that great event, the Bible says, in Isaiah 43:6-7: I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: (now watch this) .for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. It is “sons,” plural. It is “daughters,” plural. But I have created him, singular. That is the nation of Israel, called sons of God because they are created by God in a condition of sinlessness.

 

Look at one more on Israel. Hosea 1:10 states, Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. When the nation of Israel is born again at the close of the tribulation, they gain a title that signifies what they have become, that title being “sons of God.”

 

Next turn to Genesis 5:1-3. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness. Adam was a son of God, but Adam’s son was not. Adam’s son was Adam’s son. Since Adam fell into sin his children were conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity (Psalms 51), thus losing the title “son of God.”

 

Now turn to John chapter one. I want to show you a real blessing. I was in Adam. I was a son of Adam. Then one day I repented of my sin, came to the Lord Jesus Christ, put my faith and trust in Him, and was given a brand new title. John 1:12-13 declares, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. When I was born again, I was re-generated into a sinless condition. Therefore, I now have the title “son of God.”

 

All that was said to establish this fact: angels in your Bible are called sons of God, because at the time of their creation they were without sin.

 

Turn to 2 Peter 2, the book of Jude, and Isaiah 14. 2 Peter 2:4 states, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. (same sentence) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. Here we are dealing with three separate acts of God’s judgment. Yet, they are so closely related that God puts them in the same sentence. The fall of the angels, the flood of Noah’s day and the fire on Sodom and Gomorrha are inseparably linked. In addition, these all point to a fourth event, that being the judgment of the wicked at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

Read carefully the sixth verse of Jude. Here we have a qualifying statement not found in 2 Peter. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but LEFT THEIR OWN HABITATION, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. So the angels that sinned, according to Second Peter, are said here to be reserved in chains. In Jude we read of some additional details, the angels.kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.

 

Suppose some angels sinned and left their first estate, yet they did not leave their own habitation. There is no statement here that says all the angels that sinned, by leaving their first estate, also left their place of habitation.

 

Keep that in mind as you turn to Isaiah 14 to find out what the place of their habitation was. Remember, all the sons of God were shouting for joy in the presence of the Lord at the time the earth was created, but sometime after that, a group of them sinned. As a result, some of them left, not only their first estate (that is the position in which they were placed) but also the place of their habitation, i.e., their dwelling place. Isaiah 14:12-14 declares, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

Wherever Satan was the time of his rebellion, in order to get to God, he had to:

 

Go UP to heaven;

Go past the stars;

Go past the clouds.

There is only one place he could have been in order to do all three of these things, and that is on the earth. To get to heaven from earth, you must go past the clouds and past the stars in order to reach the sides of the north, where God dwells.

 

Now:

 

if sons of God were on the earth with Satan, and

if that was the place of their habitation, and

if they took part in his rebellion against God and left their first estate, and

if they went with him, as he sought to overthrow God in heaven,

they would have been chained and placed in outer darkness to await the day of judgment.

 

But suppose Satan had left a force of his fallen angels on the earth to occupy it when he sought to ascend; do you know what you would expect? You would expect that when you turn the page to God’s next event on the earth, there would be gods present. Sons of God would be there.

 

So God made Adam and put him in the garden on the earth. He made Eve and put her in the garden on the earth. Satan showed up and said, “How would you like to be as gods?” Notice that Eve did not say, “What in the world are you talking about?” Somehow she knew what he was talking about. I may be stretching things a little bit, but if you put all the verses together, Satan did not speak to Eve about something that blew her mind or confused her. He did not make reference to something of which she had no knowledge. He gave her an opportunity to be as gods, small “g” plural. He gave her the same opportunity he gave the angels that sinned. He sought to enlist her in his rebellion against the Creator.

 

Did he have an army of occupation waiting? Well, there is only one way of finding out. We have to find a connection between Satan’s rebellion, Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

So turn to Genesis 6 and Matthew 22.

 

Genesis 6:1-2 tells us, And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 

Who are these sons of God? They cannot be any of the sons of Adam. The sons of Adam are the sons of Adam, according to the previous chapter (Genesis 5:1-3). The other sons of God in the Bible are born again, New Testament believers, and they can’t be in Genesis 6 for no one is born again until after the resurrection of Jesus. The other sons of God are the nation of Israel, and they are not born until Exodus 12. Thus, we have only the angels remaining, and they are the sons of God in this case.

 

In Genesis 6, the sons of God have their eyes on the daughters of men. Notice, and here again, this ties in with the teaching of the HOLY Spirit all the way through the Bible regarding modest apparel (1 Peter 3:1-5). Sexual sins frequently begin with the sight of the eyes (Matthew 5:28). Gentlemen, that is why God told us to guard our eyes and to be careful what we watch (Lamentations 3:51). It always starts with a look. They saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and the took them wives of all which they chose.

 

Next consider Matthew 22:30, For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. This verse is used to prove that those cannot be angels in Genesis 6 because the angels of God do not marry. But there are two problems with such an interpretation.

 

The reason angels do not marry and reproduce in heaven is because they are all male. (Do not check the art gallery or the religious bookstore. Read the Bible).

God did not say “as the angels of Satan on earth.” He said, as the angels of God in heaven.

You have to take just what the Bible says, that the angels of God in heaven do not marry and are not given in marriage. He did not say anything about fallen angels on the earth.

 

Now go back to Genesis 6, and let’s see what happened. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:3-4).

 

Here is the standard teaching on these verses. The sons of God are unsaved men who married saved women. (Some say the ungodly line of Cain marries into the godly line of Seth.) I know a lot of unsaved men who have married saved women, and their children were not fourteen feet tall. I have seen a lot of born again people produce children with an unregenerate partner, and there was no renown connected with their offspring.

 

This is a strange mixing here. In Jude the Bible said angels went after strange flesh. They went after something foreign to them. They mingled their seed with a race that was not their race. They mingled themselves with people who were not their people. And when the genetic makeup of the angels hit the genetic makeup of mankind, something went haywire. Zeus showed up. Hercules showed up. Adonis and Thor and Neptune showed up. If you want to know where the mythology of the ancient people came from, a mythology that predates the flood, it came in right here. God said there were giants in the earth in those days. They were mighty men, men of renown; that is, everyone knew about them and about their superhuman deeds.

 

The Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he ALSO is flesh (meaning, obviously, that the flesh of man is fundamentally different from the flesh of these beings). There is a strange flesh that showed up and mingled its seed with the sons of men.

 

Read on in verses five through eight. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

Now watch this. Come to verse twelve. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through THEM; and, behold, I will destroy THEM with the earth (vv. 13-14). Are you ready for a great sentence? This them is the same as the they from Daniel 2. THEY shall mingle themselves with the seed of men. The earth was filled with violence through THEM.

 

So we come to understand that God’s decision to destroy all flesh with the flood was to make sure He got rid of every trace of the strange seed, the giants.

 

Now verse ten. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. What is he talking about? He is talking about Noah’s offspring, right? Look at verse nine. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect (that is, without defilement) in his generations, and Noah walked with God. This is not talking about Noah living for X number of years, for a generation in the Bible is not a length of time but a race of people. We see from the context, as it continues into verse ten, that the passage refers to Noah’s offspring. Noah’s family line had not been corrupted by the seed of the sons of God. His generations were pure.

 

God destroyed all other flesh on the earth because

 

some of that flesh had been corrupted through their seed (the fallen angels),

and to get rid of the resulting mighty men, giants, men of renown, and violence in the earth that could be traced to the influence of the fallen angels.

So we found the sons of God at Satan’s rebellion and fall, and at the flood of Noah’s day.

 

Now turn to Genesis 14. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar. (Shinar is right in the middle of Babylon) .that these made war with Bera king of Sodom (v. 2). The First World War was not fought from 1914 to 1918. It was in Genesis 14 where four nations fought against five nations. Watch what happened down where the king of Sodom lived. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled (v. 4). The number thirteen in the Bible is connected with rebellion, and it starts right here. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth (v. 5). Do you know who Ashteroth is in your Bible? She is a false goddess. Do you know where she lived? She lived in Sodom. Do you know who fought in her army? The Rephaims. Do you know what Rephaim means? It has two meanings. It means the “fallen ones,” and it means “the giants.” So in the first world war we learn about Ashteroth in Sodom with the fallen ones, or the giants, fighting in her army.

 

Following the rebellion of Satan, what do you have? The sons of God! At the destruction of Noah’s flood what do you have? The sons of God! What do you have in Sodom and Gomorrha? The sons of God! So we have found in the connection that links the three judgments listed in 2 Peter 2. You better watch out for those guys. Whenever they show up, God’s wrath and judgment are soon to follow.

 

Now turn over to Numbers 13. They were present in Noah’s day. They were present in Abraham’s day. The seed of the woman that would eventually bare Jesus was to come through Noah’s son Shem, so the devil tried to mess up that seed in Noah’s day. Then the seed was going to come through Abraham, so the devil tried to mess up the seed in Abraham’s day. Then the seed was going to come through the nation of Israel, with Moses as the law-giver. So what would you expect? You would expect the sons of God to show up and start messing with that seed. Look at numbers 13. And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it (v. 30). In verse 32, the report continues: And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel. What did they say after spying out the Promised Land? And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of THE GIANTS: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight (v. 33).

 

Guess who is waiting in the promised land of Canaan when God’s chosen people got there? You got it! the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The giants were waiting there.

 

The evil report of the spies was that they bore the same relationship to these giants as to a grasshopper. If a grasshopper stood at my feet, I would be six feet taller than a grasshopper. The same angle and the same point of view from a man to a grasshopper would be that of a giant to a man. That would make these fellows about twelve or thirteen feet tall.

 

We have seen that God sent the flood to destroy all the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. God sent fire on Sodom and Gomorrah and on all the cities of the plain round about to destroy all the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

 

Think with me for a minute. This puts one of the great arguments against the Bible in a whole new light. People read the Bible and say, “I can’t understand all the slaughter and bloodshed.” Why did God tell the nation of Israel to kill every inhabitant of the land of Canaan when they got there? It was because the giants were there. They had to destroy all the inhabitants lest the mighty men should show up in the gene pool in future generations. He said the Hebrews were to destroy all the beasts, destroy all the houses, and destroy all the pictures. He did not even want them looking at pictures of these men of renown and their ways because it would put ideas in their head and make them susceptible to another visitation.

 

Look at Deuteronomy 1:28. Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. Anakim is another word for “giants” in our Bible. That would be a second generation. Now look at Deuteronomy 2:19-20: And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims.). Where was that? Why it was where Lot settled, Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Read on into Deuteronomy 3. All the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salchah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants. (vv. 10-11). You will recall that the bulls of Bashan were present at the crucifixion of Christ. No one saw them but God. Bashan was the land of the giants and calves (their offspring always seemed to show up when Israel turned to the worship of Satan). For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. Nine cubits would be thirteen and one-half feet long, and four cubits would make it almost seven feet wide, after the cubit of a man. Now if a man had a bed thirteen feet long and seven feet wide, that would be a pretty big man. His height, in relation to yours, would be the same as yours to a grasshopper. He would be about six feet taller than the average man.

 

They showed up in Moses’ day. And they resurfaced in Joshua’s day. And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei (Joshua 12:4). Ashtaroth is the ancient name for “queen of heaven”, the female deity whose fertility rites are celebrated at the holiday that bears her Chaldean name, Ishtar. We spell it Easter. The cult of the mother and child came out of Babylon (the mother of harlots) into Chaldea and is tied in with the giants. The giants were waiting for the Israelites in the land of Canaan.

 

Consider: All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out (Joshua 13:12).

 

And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is JERUSALEM: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward: (Joshua 15:8)

 

And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee (Joshua 17:15).

 

And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to En-rogel (Joshua 18:16).

 

This is why God wanted all the inhabitants of the land destroyed. The giants were there. They showed up trying to defile the seed in Noah’s day, in Abraham’s day, and when Moses and Joshua were leading the people into the Promised Land. And then they showed up again when God was going to establish a throne: at Jerusalem.

 

And you will never guess who God’s anointed king had to kill before he could sit on the throne of Jerusalem. David had to kill a giant. Isn’t it strange? These guys always seem to show up when God’s people are about to inherit the land and/or the seed of the woman is taking another step toward the throne. That is not a coincidence. The devil knows the purposes of God, whether God’s people know it or not. He knows the timetable.

 

The future king, the type and lineal father of Jesus (in his humanity), is on hand as the champion (a mighty man of renown) of the Philistines defies the army of Israel. He was named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span (1 Samuel 17:4). This would make Goliath about 9½ feet tall, kind of puny by giant standards. As we know, David brought him down with a shepherd’s sling and slew the big fellow with his own sword.

 

While the story of David and Goliath is familiar to most people, you may not know about Goliath’s family. Look in 2 Samuel 21:16. And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. Goliath was a giant, the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but the genetic abnormality showed up in his children as well. That is why the Lord had to kill all those people.

 

Goliath was not the only giant who produced a number of huge boys. If a shekel was merely one pound (some sources say as much as eleven), it is rather impressive to think that this man could not only lift a spear weighing three hundred of them, but he could hurl it.

 

But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel (v. 16). David ran into some real difficulty with this titan, for his men thought he was dead. After this incident, they talked him into staying home from the battlefield.

 

And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants (vv. 18-22).

 

So there were four sons of Goliath who were also giants (is this why David took five stones when he went to face Goliath? {1 Samuel 17:40}), but if you notice in verse nineteen, one of the four sons of Goliath is the brother of Goliath. Not only do we have sons of God coming in to the daughters of men, but in their offspring we have an incestuous thing going on between Goliath and his mother.

 

God says these people have to be destroyed. He will destroy them in the flood, He will destroy them with fire from heaven, or He will send His chosen people to destroy them. For once they begin to mingle themselves with the seed of men, you have to rid the earth of their race or else it will bring about chaos and destruction.

 

We have viewed the fall of Satan. We have examined the reason for the flood of Noah’s day. We have essential background on the fire in Sodom and Gomorrah. We have an explanation for the extermination of the Canaanite races. So what would you expect to be happening in the earth in the last kingdom, when the earth, according to Revelation, is filled with violence and wickedness like never before? Who do you suppose the “they” is a reference to in Daniel 2:43? Who are the kings on this earth in the last days? Why must they be completely destroyed by Jesus Christ?

 

They are the offspring of the fallen angels who will unite with the daughters of men and produce a race, or at least a people, who have superior powers over the rest of humanity and can cause the whole earth to worship their leader. That is leaving the Bible as it stands and putting the verses together. You don’t need to worry about Rome, London, Beijing, Washington, Moscow or Paris taking over the world. That little job will be handled by the devil.

 

J. R. R. Tolkien, in The Lord of the Rings, borrowed much from the Bible. He was close friends with C. S. Lewis, who likewise made large profits from reworking Biblical themes in his Chronicles of Narnia. If you read Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons, you will see how almost all the mythology of this world is the word of God in detail, yet twisted just enough to put the devil on the throne. It is just slightly twisted so that Lucifer ends up on top (see Mormonism, Free Masonry, New Age, etc., etc., etc., for modern examples). Anyway, you can learn much about the Bible, and still more about Satan, by studying the literature of those who profess to know God but deny the literal truth of His word, for the devil tips his hand in moralistic yet Christ denying literature.

 

Tolkien said that if the elves, who were the superior race in his mythology, chose to cohabit with a human, they would lose their immortality. That idea shows up in a large portion of the mythology of this world.

 

Watch carefully what the Lord tells us in Psalms 82. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods (v. 1). The Bible recognizes the existence of a plurality of gods, while declaring that there is one Supreme God who is over them and who judges among them. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah (v. 2). They are great, mighty and powerful men, men of renown. You had better refuse the influence of those persons and follow God. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: Watch this .all the foundations of the earth are out of course (vv. 3-5). Whoever these guys are, they go all the way back to the time when the foundations of this earth got messed up. When the earth was founded in Job 38, the sons of God were on God’s side. Then, something went wrong. Look carefully: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations (vv. 6-8).

 

Do you know what you have in verses five through eight? You have the whole history of this sordid affair, running from the foundation of the earth to the second coming of Jesus Christ. All the foundations of the earth are out of course, verse five. The gods, the children of the most High, had been messing around down here, and because of that, they die like men. In verse eight, God rises up and inherits all nations.

 

So it appears that when a son of God joins himself to strange flesh (a daughter of man) he loses his immortality. As he imparted his somewhat supernatural seed into that woman, she passed to him the corruption of human flesh, thus bringing death upon him. That shows up in the mythology of this world far too often to be a coincidence. There has to be something to it.

 

Somehow, when that iron mixes with that miry clay, they destroy one another. The sons of God destroy the human race; the fall of humanity destroys the immortality of the sons of God; and the whole thing falls apart. So God must bring judgment upon all flesh.

 

God called THEIR name (the man and the woman) Adam (Genesis 5:2), that we might understand the totality of the marriage bond. He warned that those who engage in sexual relations outside the marriage bed run the risk of defilement and, thus, bring upon themselves the judgment of God (Hebrews 13:4). This in the same passage that warns about angels stopping by for a visit (Hebrews 13:2). Yes, that is a stretch, but a curious one, you must admit.

 

In light of what God has revealed to us during the course of this study, the commands to execute the adulterer (Leviticus 20:10), the fornicator (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:25) come into much clearer focus. Not only are these crimes against God, the individual and the family, but they may be crimes against the entire human race. Consider the events of Numbers 25 in this regard.

 

Let’s go back to the idea of immortals becoming mortals Isaiah 26:12-14 states: LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us. O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. These other lords that had dominion in the earth die like men, but have no resurrection. They are annihilated, completely destroyed. They do not rise again; therefore they can’t be men. All lost men rise to stand before the Great White Throne Judgment. Whoever these guys are, they are completely done away with.

 

Finally, turn to Matthew 24, Revelation 12 and then back to Daniel 2. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be (Matthew 24:36-37). Were there giants in the days of Noah? God said, as the days of Noe (Noah) were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Now we can understand the reason for the destruction by the flood. Now we can understand the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now we can understand the reason for the destruction at the second coming of Jesus Christ. It is not God destroying man, per se. It is God destroying the seed of Satan. He is bruising the serpent’s head.

 

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (Revelation 12:7-12). That is what is ahead. Not only is Satan coming to earth but a kingdom is waiting for him. When he shows up as the false king, there is already a government in place, ready to put him on the throne and to crown him as conqueror.

 

So the last government on this earth, before the second coming of Jesus Christ, is far more ominous than the revival of the old Roman Empire. Look at Daniel 2:43-44 again. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, THEY shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of THESE KINGS shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

 

So the kings ruling the earth in the time of great tribulation will be the offspring of the sons of God. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the coming of the Son of man.

 

Now you know why everyone of the enemy host is destroyed at Armageddon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question Japeth. Book of Jude. Tell me about it. This shouldn't take long, being it's one page.

 

 

Shawn

 

Theres alote there what do you want to know?

 

Do you believe it is the inerrant Word of God? Was Jude a true Christian, in your opinion? Should I, if I was a saved believer in Jesus, be able to rely on it for defense of the faith and for learning and teaching?

 

 

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question Japeth. Book of Jude. Tell me about it. This shouldn't take long, being it's one page.

 

 

Shawn

 

Theres alote there what do you want to know?

 

Do you believe it is the inerrant Word of God? Was Jude a true Christian, in your opinion? Should I, if I was a saved believer in Jesus, be able to rely on it for defense of the faith and for learning and teaching?

 

 

Shawn

 

Of course I believe the word of God to be inerrant.

 

I assume he was a true christian

 

Yes you could rely on it for the defense of the faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Japheth if you could change anything about the modern educational system, what would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is the master at deciet for something to appear authentic it has to be as close to the original.

What? Does that mean that the bible, which appears authentic, is the work of the devil since it came at a later date than the original?

 

Please

Please what? The stories that are in the bible were adopted by Christians. Just as the candy cane was (now that one's a hoot!)

 

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

MITHRAISM -- A Historical Introduction:

 

"For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 3000 BCE in Persia, which was moved west and became imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. There is mention of Mithra or Mitra (et al) before 2800, but only as a minor diety and without much information. It appears to be after 2800 BCE when Mithra is transformed and starts to play a major role among the gods. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

 

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

 

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world."

 

Bold is mine for you attention.

 

And this is what you want to do when you don't want to break any laws: Mithraism & Christianity

 

Oh...and this is a good one here:

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

Lets see if your claims are true?

 

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm

 

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?

 

 

 

Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology?

First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.

There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

Following is a chart demonstrating some of the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament.

 

Theme Old Testament

Reference New Testament

fulfilled in Jesus

Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20

Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22

Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5

Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38

Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5

God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3

Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3

Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2. See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7

Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21

Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20

Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11

Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18

Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18;

Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25

 

(For a more complete list please go to Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament?)

 

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

 

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1

 

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

 

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

 

 

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Japheth if you could change anything about the modern educational system, what would that be?

 

 

Are you talking Theological, engineering, arts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Japeth, copying and pasting long strings of text is annoying, and technically against the policies of this site. Just reference the material and explain it in your own words.

 

If you are unable, or too lazy, to express your points in your own words, chances are you don't understand them yourself.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth, copying and pasting long strings of text is annoying, and technically against the policies of this site. Just reference the material and explain it in your own words.

 

If you are unable, or too lazy, to express your points in your own words, chances are you don't understand them yourself.

 

Thanks.

 

That fine but shouldnt that apply across the board? since you dont like me you single me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Japheth if you could change anything about the modern educational system, what would that be?

 

What would qualify as extraordinary evidence to the existance of Jesus Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
That fine but shouldnt that apply across the board? since you dont like me you single me out.

 

Because it's my website. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I believe the word of God to be inerrant.

 

I assume he was a true christian

 

Yes you could rely on it for the defense of the faith.

 

Japeth,

 

What I asked is do you believe that the book of Jude is the Word of God and without flaws, specifically? I will assume that's a yes.

 

Ok, so you believe Jude was a true Christian.

 

And you believe it's useful for defense of the faith (Book of Jude).

 

 

Ok. Here we go then...Book of Jude:

 

 

You know that Jude quotes (Jude 1:14) from a now defunct book, 'The Book of Enoch'. I own a copy of it. It's been considered spurious for a long time now, and was removed from the Bible. In fact, it originally took presidence over the Book of Revelations, which any scholar of biblical scripture knows used to be considered a spurious work itself. Later it was accepted, and the Book of Enoch was removed.

 

 

Jude also quotes (Jude 1:9) from some obscure manuscript, considered likely a Jewish Fable. No where in the Old Testament did Satan contest for Moses's body.

 

 

So my point being, if Jude believes nonsense that never happened, how can we trust anything he says? Further, this is a serious crack in the Bible itself. If God's Word is estabilished in Heaven, and His Word is true, and He is not the author of confusion, and these early believers had the Holy Spirit which essentially, is God Himself, meaning they should know a lie or fable when they see it, and did miracles, ect...how could they believe in stuff that never happened? There's no way God would purposely lie to His own. Unless...

 

 

This is all a bunch of 1/2 truths, and mystic concepts about the 'Creator'. Which means, He/She/It either does not exist, or there's many ways to 'Heaven'. Or maybe 'God' made this place, and is so above what He/She/It did, let's people believe and do largely whatever they want.

 

 

There can be only one truth, ultimately. And there are serious flaws in the Bible. True Christians don't see them for alot of reasons...they either choose to not want to, they assume it's all true somehow, and/or are ignorant of the Bible (big one!). It's like when you love someone so much, they can do no wrong in YOUR eyes. Like the parent who defends their son who just shot the dog next door in the eye with a BB gun. "Not MY Tommy! He's an angel!" You can have all the proof, even a smoking gun, but there's always an excuse of some form.

 

 

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.