The first Christians weren't Bible Christians

[truthBtold]

The Bible not to mention Christianity is based in Jewish Mysticism--the Kabbalah which is metaphysical in nature--all based on numbers (numerology) psychological archetypes (tarot and astrology) and how those are expressed in our lives. Metaphysics means comprehensive physics based mostly on numbers and psychology. If you have a very well versed education in metaphysics you will notice the Bible is all written metaphysical terms not literal ones.


Most of the Bible clearly express what Christians refer to as witchcraft and dark craft elsewhere but don't notice it in their own bibles because they decry metaphysics as occult arts or devil worship. So are not educated in it. Are ignorant of the fact they are reading a book they would consider a book of shadows if that book was called anything but the bible. The Bible itself admits to this is. There's been no deception in that respect.

If you asked any Christian if they would smite their neighbor they'd say no . But the US stating itself to be a Christian nation..well I think every country has noticed the US spend a lot of time smiting its neighbor. Of course we don't burn bulls in sacrifice anymore we just burn down entire civilizations ....

Milk for babies, meat for strong men which means belief systems of any sort are for un-self developed people. Beliefs are milk. Like milk people just swallow beliefs, it nourishes babies. We know that. Scientifically babies need milk...Adults don't really. We can get what milk provides from food that babies can't eat. Like cheese. Meat is spiritual precepts that one has to chew on a bit. Something babies can't do. And meat may be tough, may not taste good, may be challenging, hard to swallow.... But meat is responsible for a great many things like growth, and strength. That's metaphysics right there. A comprehensive way of observing something (instead of just swallowing it ). What religion is composed of is a great many unselfdeveloped people. Spiritually immature? Who could tell. But you can observe they are Emotionally immature--not self developed on an emotional level. Children believe in Santa Clause, adults believe in an entity called God who for all intents and purposes appears to be a grown up version of Santa Claus--he's got a list, he's checking it twice, gonna find out whose naughty or nice. If you aren't nice you get a piece of coal..coal burns by the way..like hell.

Nonetheless people will choose the Santa God story because because ..its comforting . How? How some omnipotent angry and unstable entity looking over your life is comforting is beyond me. We wouldn't willfully choose a rather limited human being to partner with but yet who would choose an allpowerful entity of that nature to partner with. Someone under a spell. Someone under hypnosis or otherwise in some altered state of consciousness.


Since no one studies metaphysics anymore (not to be confused with new age bs, which is reupholstered Christianity) no one knows what the Bible is composed of. Insanely enough, Christians don't know its a spell book. It says so right in there. "I"M A spell book. Go-SPEL. Spells (spel in old english) are usually hypnotic in nature-hypnosis depends on scripts. The bible states plainly that its SCRIPT-ures. A book of spells. Books of spells are used to ..cast spells. This is what the bible is telling ...go look at the bible its never been dishonest about this.....who can't see it. People who are under a spell.


Why can't Christians see this when its plainly written in the bible....because the spells are doing what intended. They are under a spell. You can't say the bible is not a functional article, its working all too well for its intended purpose.

Jesus did say , Forgiven them they have no idea what they are doing. Hard to argue with that.

To people who are literate and educated...its simply a means of knowing how people are brainwashed (to use a modern word).

Atheism is a step up from that undeveloped self. A leap of consciousness the breaking of the spel. You might not get it yet..or have all the answers but the first thing you notice is its like waking from a spel. And that people who can't get out from under it..act like they are walking under a spell. There's lots of anger there especially when you look how much damage is caused by three nearly identical religions Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I can't blame them for that but then again its wasted anger, angry at something that doesn't exist. Just a spel, a story. The Bible says so itself.

And if you given even a cursory once over Christians don't even believe in their own faith. It's not a faith or belief system....

Maybe its the hypocrisy that makes people--atheists--angry.

For the person who is interpreting the bible in its correct terms.....its simply a means of knowing how undeveloped people are controlled.

Can u repeat everything u just said?. J.k.

[Phatt Matt s]

The Bible not to mention Christianity is based in Jewish Mysticism--the Kabbalah which is metaphysical in nature--all based on numbers (numerology) psychological archetypes (tarot and astrology) and how those are expressed in our lives. Metaphysics means comprehensive physics based mostly on numbers and psychology. If you have a very well versed education in metaphysics you will notice the Bible is all written metaphysical terms not literal ones.


Most of the Bible clearly express what Christians refer to as witchcraft and dark craft elsewhere but don't notice it in their own bibles because they decry metaphysics as occult arts or devil worship. So are not educated in it. Are ignorant of the fact they are reading a book they would consider a book of shadows if that book was called anything but the bible. The Bible itself admits to this is. There's been no deception in that respect.

If you asked any Christian if they would smite their neighbor they'd say no . But the US stating itself to be a Christian nation..well I think every country has noticed the US spend a lot of time smiting its neighbor. Of course we don't burn bulls in sacrifice anymore we just burn down entire civilizations ....

Milk for babies, meat for strong men which means belief systems of any sort are for un-self developed people. Beliefs are milk. Like milk people just swallow beliefs, it nourishes babies. We know that. Scientifically babies need milk...Adults don't really. We can get what milk provides from food that babies can't eat. Like cheese. Meat is spiritual precepts that one has to chew on a bit. Something babies can't do. And meat may be tough, may not taste good, may be challenging, hard to swallow.... But meat is responsible for a great many things like growth, and strength. That's metaphysics right there. A comprehensive way of observing something (instead of just swallowing it ). What religion is composed of is a great many unselfdeveloped people. Spiritually immature? Who could tell. But you can observe they are Emotionally immature--not self developed on an emotional level. Children believe in Santa Clause, adults believe in an entity called God who for all intents and purposes appears to be a grown up version of Santa Claus--he's got a list, he's checking it twice, gonna find out whose naughty or nice. If you aren't nice you get a piece of coal..coal burns by the way..like hell.

Nonetheless people will choose the Santa God story because because ..its comforting . How? How some omnipotent angry and unstable entity looking over your life is comforting is beyond me. We wouldn't willfully choose a rather limited human being to partner with but yet who would choose an allpowerful entity of that nature to partner with. Someone under a spell. Someone under hypnosis or otherwise in some altered state of consciousness.


Since no one studies metaphysics anymore (not to be confused with new age bs, which is reupholstered Christianity) no one knows what the Bible is composed of. Insanely enough, Christians don't know its a spell book. It says so right in there. "I"M A spell book. Go-SPEL. Spells (spel in old english) are usually hypnotic in nature-hypnosis depends on scripts. The bible states plainly that its SCRIPT-ures. A book of spells. Books of spells are used to ..cast spells. This is what the bible is telling ...go look at the bible its never been dishonest about this.....who can't see it. People who are under a spell.


Why can't Christians see this when its plainly written in the bible....because the spells are doing what intended. They are under a spell. You can't say the bible is not a functional article, its working all too well for its intended purpose.

Jesus did say , Forgiven them they have no idea what they are doing. Hard to argue with that.

To people who are literate and educated...its simply a means of knowing how people are brainwashed (to use a modern word).

Atheism is a step up from that undeveloped self. A leap of consciousness the breaking of the spel. You might not get it yet..or have all the answers but the first thing you notice is its like waking from a spel. And that people who can't get out from under it..act like they are walking under a spell. There's lots of anger there especially when you look how much damage is caused by three nearly identical religions Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I can't blame them for that but then again its wasted anger, angry at something that doesn't exist. Just a spel, a story. The Bible says so itself.

And if you given even a cursory once over Christians don't even believe in their own faith. It's not a faith or belief system....

Maybe its the hypocrisy that makes people--atheists--angry.

For the person who is interpreting the bible in its correct terms.....its simply a means of knowing how undeveloped people are controlled.

Welcome to our forum and I'm honored and flattered that your first post was on my thread. THanks for the Gem Sunshine!

---

Interesting Arac:

for some other balance, I was reviewing Dogherty, found misgivingly; and Dawkins and a Hawkins and jung:
then the likes of Derek Prince and his scholarship from King's... and CS Lewis.

Just seems if i were to build a called-out group,
it would be more than on just some one named 'pebbley' or 'stoney' or called then Petros;
but
would 'build' on a knowledge called petra, "rock"... of some direct connective
-other than that of which-
mis-historicals, and mis-interpretors, and other human-heart-thinking-centers could- if they could- merely disuay

---

That recorded conversation of Peter with Jesus asking
"Who do you say that I am?"
-so to understand simply,
but Jesus' seemed-awareness of how Peter knew to be "built" on other knowledge about Jesus on Earth, not passed on by humans;
and later seems even more so, respecting Paul in this as recorded scripture Col 2:9 ; I Cor 3:17; Titus: "Great Savior God" (lit Grk) Jesus, himself and other writ; "...Lord is the spirit (some 'Spirit' transliterated).

re: OP it would seem "I will write it on their hearts" was being fulfilled of a whole Hebraic 'law'

Could I please get the opinion of everyone who reads this brilliant piece as to what is wrong with the poster? I thought I had problems. Good grief!

[Minimalist]

The catholic church teaches that the pope has the keys of the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing given to peter.

A fifth century doctrine first put forward by Leo I who was trying to assert his authority while the world tumbled down around him.

[bluhatpill]

Welcome to our forum and I'm honored and flattered that your first post was on my thread. THanks for the Gem Sunshine!Welcome.

Thanks and thank you for the welcome.

[Belev2Know]

T ? Who the beautiful coitus am I ? Why does that have anything to do with a thinking discussion?

No I do not mind you, and hope to see more subject and less adjectival commonality...

Study more means:

About all the history in a range to about to other's doubting's of historical “records sources" to back to believers stating "the word is the power of God unto salvation"

all that , in that range, if it were
seems

Ehrman has more than a couple boo-boos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ehrman%2...s&ie=UTF-8

then I searched one I have read since 1976…
seems a bit more scholarly by any comparison:

https://www.google.com/search?q=derek+pr...h&ie=UTF-8


please study around a bit for a few years, then
realize it will only be not about some "convincing" either way, but by a relative 'revelation' which seems to have been why a Peter answered Jesus: "you are the annointed-one, son of yhwh/God " that "flesh did not reveal to" Peter, ... that's all.

Good Night
and God Speed.

[Minimalist]

The most important part of that claim has been long since disproved. We don't find any ancient codices that contain heretical books, for instance.

Because fine xtian thugs burned them, Danny. Time to get your head out of your ass again.

[Belev2Know]

The catholic church teaches that the pope has the keys of the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing given to peter.

A fifth century doctrine first put forward by Leo I who was trying to assert his authority while the world tumbled down around him.

not seeing the science in the called out ones built on a man, but a knowledge by 'revelation' of who first followers of Jesus understood Jesus built his called out ones on the knowledge of him as Son of YWHW/God, as the record has it, and revealed not by convincing arguements nor apologetics, but the father-parent God himself, only, as it is written (source being what it is)

and I read the "Ehrman" ...
and then
~

https://www.google.com/search?q=ehrman%2...s&ie=UTF-8

and but
Derek Prince seems scientifically a bit more thorough,
but I have read him since 1976 and met three times-
just
seems a bit more scholarly by any comparison:

https://www.google.com/search?q=derek+pr...h&ie=UTF-8

[Minimalist]

Yeah, yeah...I know...Shithead jesus freaks claim Ehrman made errors so all of you nitwits can breathe easier.

The problem is that Ehrman is discussing bible fuckups that have been known among real scholars - not dirtbag xtians - for 3 centuries. All Ehrman has done is publicize what scholars already knew for the general public...and the jesus freaks promptly shit their pants.

[Aractus]

You follow cherished Myths about the Catholic Church propagated by those who refuse to acknowledge Historical facts and rewrite History so that they have some of what appears to be credibility.

Haha, wrong. I've done my own research.

The Church never added seven books. Early Christians accepted the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals.

Then explain to me why the Septuagint book of Daniel was removed and replaced with the Theodatian book of Daniel? And how about while you're at it you tell me when and why this occurred? And while you're at it could you tell me when "the" LXX was written?

Martin Luther removed them in the 16th century.

He didn't remove them, they continued to be published in Protestant Bibles, under the heading "Apocrypha", which is the term that Jerome used for those books.

The Septuagint which was the Old and New Testament translated by about 70 to 72 Jewish scholars into Greek, which was the popular language of the time. The entire New Testament was written in Greek and the Jews who rejected the Apocrypha (because it was written in Greek) at the council of Jamnia, also rejected Christ and the whole New Testament.

Hahahahaha. The LXX is not a "single translation" by a group of any number of scholars, in fact many of the books may not have been translated by scholars at all. The Council of Jamnia is an historical event, however the Jews did not alter their canon. They discussed the canonology of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, and kept their canon as it was - the Palestinian Jews never removed any books from their scriptures (the Samaritans did though).

Early Christians accepted the Deuterocanonicals until the time of Martin Luther, more than 1500 years later.

Jerome rejected them.

In the first four centuries, Church leaders generally recognized these seven books as canonical and Scriptural, following the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome in 382. The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus(fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus(450) include the (unseperated) Deuterocanonical books.

And neither of them contain the original LXX version of the book of Daniel, as I've now pointed out several times.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran contained the book of Tobit. Christians accepted the Apocrypha until the reformation.

The DSS also contained plenty of other non-canonical books, plus they contained lists of scripture (in fact confirming the Book of Daniel's canonical status) and in these lists do not list any of the 7 Apocrypha. You seem to be quoting very selective facts.

Where from the Bible did Martin Luther get the authority to take them out? He wasnt soloscriptura afterall.

He didn't take them out, his Bible contained the OT the Apocrypha and the NT.

Bishop Mileto of Sardis, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Wusebius, and Bishop of Caesarea, were some of the various Bishops of the Catholic Church who decided which list of books was to be in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Pope Damasus 382 AD prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books. The Council of Hippo in 393AD approved that these books were dvinely inspired. The Council of Carthage (in North Africa 397AD) approved the same OT and NT Canon. It was Catholic Bishops who decided which books would be in the Bible. Jesus did not leave his early followers with a Bible, he left them with a Church.

That isn't entirely accurate because you're picking up the story from the fourth century, when we know that in the second century most if not all of the NT was being read as scripture.

The Bible is a Catholic book and Protestant Churches get their Bible and many of their traditions from the Roman Catholic Church. The founding Father of the Protestant reformation was a Catholic Priest and every protestant denomination can trace itself back to the Catholic Church.

Again, you've been taught the history you're parroting back, but it's selective and in some parts very wrong.

The 4th century church was not the Roman Catholic Church - it was the holy catholic church and later in the 9th century there was an eastern-western split into Orthodox and Catholic; neither the Orthodox nor the RCC has a legitimate claim to being the original church. At some point the RCC demanded that the Patriarch of the Orthodox church recognize the Catholic Pope as the legitimate leader of the church. If history happened the way you say then explain why the Orthodox church has a different NT canon?

THe First Protestants took the Catholic BIBLE
Do you get your Bible from the Catholic CHurch? The inventors of Protestantism did

We actually got the OT portion from the Masorete Jews. Neither the RCC nor the Orthodox church had bothered preserving it. Sure they both believed the LXX was better, but now due to modern scholarship and, and I can't emphasise this enough, due to the discovery of the DSS we now know the MT text to be wonderfully preserved and of far higher quality, and near identical to the texts found in the DSS. And we also now know that LXX was cobbled together over time, we don't know who translated the books, but we do know some books were translated better than others.

At some point Christians had stoped reading from the Hebrew scriptures, and this was probably in the 3rd or 4th centuries. This was a very grave mistake, and a mistake on which the RCC and Orthodox churches decided to build their legacy. It most likely had a lot to do with anti-Semitic beliefs.

I might remind you of what I pointed out before, Luke - the author that wrote the most in the NT by number of words - quotes from Hebrew scriptures, he has learned from and reads the Hebrew scriptures. So you need to re-think how the first Christians read the OT. We know that in mid 2nd century there were 4 or 5 different Greek translations of the OT and of those only "the" LXX has survived in full.

[Phatt Matt s]

Okay dude i'm fine having this conversation with you but I have to defend myself on multiple different threads and it's getting late.

Jerome preached obedience to the Church. The Ecclesiastical authorities had not held the authoritative provincial councils with the Pope and the Bishops to make a binding Holy-Spirit inspired declaration on the Canon of Scripture that Christians were to embrace. Jerome was not rebelling against the Church. Jerome also is not infallible. Yes, in his time there was much debate.

He would have obeyed the Church as his contemporary Saint Augustine said, "I would not believe the Gospel were Holy Mother Church not to tell me they were the truth". I'll quote him verbatim on that when I get a sec.

What you said about the Catholic Church not knowing what the correct canon was until the 16th Century is a cherished myth void of truth and can easily be proven so.

I thought extremely highly of you but am beginning to wonder if your Doctrite has been worthwhile or filled you with pride and vanity.