FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bible Compiled By Demonic Roman Empire






Where the Romans right?
Yes, Jewish Christian texts were all wrong and only the Romans knew the truth about Christ
33%
 33%  [ 1 ]
No, the best information on Christ was burned by the Romans (along with the Jewish Christians)
66%
 66%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 3

mike1reynolds
It says point blank in the Bible that the Roman gods were in fact demons. And in keeping with this the compilation was a blood bath. During the few years of the compilation of the Bible more Christians were killed by each other than during all the centuries of persecutions combined. Even though Jesus was a Jew, all of the Jewish Christian texts were destroyed and their followers killed. Only the Roman texts adhered to by converted demon worshipers were allowed in the Bible. The one exception is the Gospel of John, which made it into the Bible by the skin of its teeth. It narrowly avoided being declared heretical when it was voted on at the council of Nicea. So 90% of Jesus’ teachings were destroyed by the oh so spiritual Romans, and what remains is so small that it is more of pamphlet than a book.

Christianity started as an exclusively Semitic religion, Jesus said, “I came only for the Jews”. Paul alone broke ranks and approached gentiles, and was severally chastised by all his fellow Christians for doing so, as recorded in the Bible. Yet it was still a Semtiphilic religion until the Romans killed most of the Jewish Christians and destroyed all their records of Jesus, turning Christianity against Jesus’ own race. Only then did it become nearly impossible to convert Jews.

Rome was a demonic empire that tainted everything it touched.
a_dubDesign
mike1reynolds wrote:
Christianity started as an exclusively Semitic religion, Jesus said, “I came only for the Jews”. Paul alone broke ranks and approached gentiles, and was severally chastised by all his fellow Christians for doing so, as recorded in the Bible.

I can't comment on all of your post becuase I'm not to knowledgable in chruch history, something I need to rememdy. However, I'm not sure where you are getting Jesus saying he came only for the jews. I totally understand the bit about Paul though. But there are things going all the way back to verses in Genesis that talk about the inclusion of non-jewish people. And its totally true, he did catch alot of crap from other jews who were still stuck in thier inclusive mindset.
mike1reynolds
In Matthew 15:24 Jesus says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

I'm not sure what you mean by Old Testament inclusiveness, the Jews have always held themselves apart, which is why it is not just a religion but also an ehtnicity. If it were inclusive it could not have been an ethnicity.
AftershockVibe
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The roman empire spanned most of the meditteranean and was therefore always a mix of cultures, even if it made a good attempt (especially violent ones in the case of some emperors) to enforce state religion.

Romans were not demonic, they were people suprisingly enough. They might have done some things you disagree with but that doesn't make them agents of the devil. Rolling Eyes

Besides didn't Jesus teach about the forgiveness of God. Surely these "converted demon worshippers" had done just that and converted and were therefore forgiven for their mistakes in the past. Also bear in mind that because religion was profilerated by real people, not just the government, and religious writings of importance would have been copied. While these were banned, they won't have been destroyed which is why the of the apocrypha is still around.

Furthermore, using quotes from the Bible can be used to attempt to prove anything when put in a given context. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 says;
Quote:
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Does the Bible advocate rape? hmmmmm! And before you go with the "but it's by the demonic romans!!" it's from the old testament and also in the Torah.
mike1reynolds
You turned my point on it’s head. My intent was not a critique of individual Romans or Roman civilization, it was a critique of the process by which the Bible was compiled. You seem to be asserting that along with forgiveness one should confer spiritual authority to any convert, in this case, former demon worshipers who continued to commit mass murder against Christians and destroyed 90% of Christ’s teachings, even as they claimed to be Christians authorities.

My point is that the Bible was not compiled by a gathering of holy men, it was compiled through a political process, a full scale war if truth be told. The Roman politicians influenced the mob to murder all the Christian holy men. Their intent was to retain Roman control of the state church and destroy all Semitic Christian claims to authority, even though the vast majority of early Christian texts were handed down through lines of Semitic Christians. This is the reason that the Gospel of John was almost declared heretical, it came from a Semitic line of authority.

AftershockVibe wrote:
Also bear in mind that because religion was profilerated by real people, not just the government, and religious writings of importance would have been copied. While these were banned, they won't have been destroyed which is why the apocrypha is still around.

The Apocrypha is only a very tiny fraction of the works that were destroyed. Most are still only known from references made in critiques by early Roman church fathers. For example, the Gospel of Judas was just unearthed. Prior to this it was only known about through the criticisms of Irenius, an early Roman church father. In fact, that is the only reason that it can be positively dated to have been written sometime prior to 130 AD.

I don’t know how valuable the Gospel of Judas is as a source of genuine information on Jesus, but a much more obviously salient example is the Gospel of Thomas. Very many Christian theologians believe that the Gospel of Thomas was one of the sources for the three later Gospels. The Gospels are full of references to events after the destruction of the temple and the Diaspora in 70 AD, as well as allusions to 2nd century political conflicts between Christian sects. The Gospel of Thomas is devoid of these. It contains many verses similar to canonical Gospel verses, but in simpler forms that have no anachronistic allusions. But until the 1940’s only very small fragments of the Gospel of Thomas had been persevered.

The Apocrypha was originally part of the Colgate, the first compiled Bible. It was later pulled out, but none of the Apocryphal books were fragmentary, they were preserved whole.
BruceTheDauber
Quote:
No, the best information on Christ was burned by the Romans (along with the Jewish Christians)


History is written by the winners, as they say. Christians have been lying about the fall of the Roman Empire for the past 16 centuries.

It was the Christians who burnt the Romans (and their palaces and temples and libraries, and especially their priests and sages), not the Romans who burnt the Christians. The Romans by-and-large tolerated the Christians, not realizing the threat they represented until it was too late.
mike1reynolds
Well, at that point the Romans were Christians, at least in name.
BruceTheDauber
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, at that point the Romans were Christians, at least in name.


If by "at that point" you mean "when the Vulgate was finalized", you'd be right, but most of the canon had been decided long before then, so, debatable.
a_dubDesign
mike1reynolds wrote:
In Matthew 15:24 Jesus says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

I'm not sure what you mean by Old Testament inclusiveness, the Jews have always held themselves apart, which is why it is not just a religion but also an ehtnicity. If it were inclusive it could not have been an ethnicity.

Never realized the matthew quote, I will have to check that out in more detail. The inclusiviness I mentioned wasn't into the ethnicity, more thier relationship with God, which was acomplished through christ. The specific early verse I'm thinking of is the begining of Genesis 12, verse 3 being a refrence to christ's death for the whole world, which jesus is a descendant of abraham. Matthew 1:1-17 is the easiest place to find that.
mike1reynolds
BruceTheDauber wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, at that point the Romans were Christians, at least in name.


If by "at that point" you mean "when the Vulgate was finalized", you'd be right, but most of the canon had been decided long before then, so, debatable.

Well, you refered to the fall of Rome in 475 and I was referring to your reference.

Since the Roman religion was a fully demonic religion that promoted a blood thirsty genocidal slave culture, I would argue that any form of Christianity was an improvement. However, because of the blood thirsty manner in which the Bible was compiled, Christianity unavoidably absorbed some of the demonic nature of the Roman religion.

This is the reason why you rile against it perpetually, even when the subject is completely different theistic religions that have none of these demonic influences. In doing so you are projecting demon worship onto theism, when in fact the two are diametrically opposed. That is why you rile against worship, only demons require worship. This is also why you are perpetually unable to address meaningful or relevant criticism to the expressions of Eastern monotheism, because they entirely lack these demonic influences that revolve around demon worship.
mike1reynolds
a_dubDesign wrote:
The inclusiviness I mentioned wasn't into the ethnicity, more thier relationship with God, which was acomplished through christ. The specific early verse I'm thinking of is the begining of Genesis 12, verse 3 being a refrence to christ's death for the whole world, which jesus is a descendant of abraham.

I don’t understand, the Genesis reference is explicitly to Abram, not Jesus.
a_dubDesign
mike1reynolds wrote:
a_dubDesign wrote:
The inclusiviness I mentioned wasn't into the ethnicity, more thier relationship with God, which was acomplished through christ. The specific early verse I'm thinking of is the begining of Genesis 12, verse 3 being a refrence to christ's death for the whole world, which jesus is a descendant of abraham.

I don’t understand, the Genesis reference is explicitly to Abram, not Jesus.

Yeah, its do abram, but theres a couple interuperatations, one of them being a foreshadowing of christ.
BruceTheDauber
mike1reynolds wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, at that point the Romans were Christians, at least in name.


If by "at that point" you mean "when the Vulgate was finalized", you'd be right, but most of the canon had been decided long before then, so, debatable.

Well, you refered to the fall of Rome in 475 and I was referring to your reference.


Actually, I didn't refer to the sack of rome at all. The Latin Vulgate was finalized in 405 AD, by Jerome, on orders issued by Pope Damasus I (a murderer and a saint, incidentally) in the 380s, almost a century before the sack of Rome. The Christians were burning and killing Romans, and vandalizing their property long before then.

Rome became officially Christian in 337, and the official persecution of non-Christians began immediately (and was especially vigorous under Theodosius I), but even before that, Christians were rioting and vandalizing other people's property, as well as disrupting non-Christian religious ceremonies, and the Diocletan 'persecution' of Christians was provoked by Christians disrupting Imperial ceremonies, and stepped up when some Christian fanatics burned the Emperor's palace in an arson attack.

Compared to any Roman persecutions of Christians (which were responses to Christian disruption of the peace, or acts of vandalism), the Christian persecution of pagans was much more extreme and violent, and arbitrary.

Christianity was not an improvement for Rome. It was the equivalent of a successful nation being taken over by the Taliban or Mao's Red Brigade fanatics. They destroyed education, shut down freedom of thought, and demolished the economy. The main difference between the Christians who took over Rome, and the Communist lunatics who helped Mao vandalize China, is that the Christians successfully maintained control of the Empire for a thousand years, with the predictably miserable results that we now remember as 'The Dark Ages'.

Quote:
Since the Roman religion was a fully demonic religion that promoted a blood thirsty genocidal slave culture, I would argue that any form of Christianity was an improvement.


That's nonsense. First of all, there was no single "Roman religion". The Roman Empire was completely open and tolerant, as regards religion. It would never have occurred to them to dictate a particular religion, or to persecute a religion because they didn't like its myths or rituals. Not surprisingly, there were lots of religions in Rome, and there was an ebb and flow of cults that replaced each other according to fashion. The upper classes were not particularly religious, and they were often atheists, following Stoic or Epicurian philosophies. Second, to call someone's religion demonic, unless it is explicitly and self-consciously demonic, is an expression of pure bigotry.

Quote:
However, because of the blood thirsty manner in which the Bible was compiled, Christianity unavoidably absorbed some of the demonic nature of the Roman religion.


Nonsense. Christian bloodthirstiness springs from Christian bigotry, which in turn springs from Biblical texts.

Quote:
This is the reason why you rile against it perpetually, even when the subject is completely different theistic religions that have none of these demonic influences.


Demonic influences? You are clearly a nut. (But I could have guessed that from your disquisition in the thread on Buddhism about your "mystical" experiences.) I will not discuss religion with you any further. Please feel free to rant on without interruption from me.
AftershockVibe
Quote:
Quote:
Since the Roman religion was a fully demonic religion that promoted a blood thirsty genocidal slave culture, I would argue that any form of Christianity was an improvement.


That's nonsense. First of all, there was no single "Roman religion". The Roman Empire was completely open and tolerant, as regards religion. It would never have occurred to them to dictate a particular religion, or to persecute a religion because they didn't like its myths or rituals. Not surprisingly, there were lots of religions in Rome, and there was an ebb and flow of cults that replaced each other according to fashion. The upper classes were not particularly religious, and they were often atheists, following Stoic or Epicurian philosophies. Second, to call someone's religion demonic, unless it is explicitly and self-consciously demonic, is an expression of pure bigotry.


Just to tag onto that the Roman "blood thristy genocidal slave culture" which you speak of is awfully similar to the christian crusades & the christian adopted feudal system. Considering africans were used as slaves by the christian western world until only last century.... erm.... what was your point again?
mike1reynolds
AftershockVibe wrote:
Just to tag onto that the Roman "blood thristy genocidal slave culture" which you speak of is awfully similar to the christian crusades & the christian adopted feudal system. Considering africans were used as slaves by the christian western world until only last century.... erm.... what was your point again?

My point was that the Bible was composed via a bloody political process, not a gathering of holy men.

Thanks to both of you for helping to support my assertion, even though for some odd reason you seem to think you are arguing with me. Very Happy I could argue with Bruce that the Romans were no better than the Christians, but that doesn't really help support my thesis now does it?! Laughing

(Since the Bible says that the Roman gods were demons, Christians will accept the assertion that the Roman empire was evil at face value, and who else would argue with my principle thesis other than Christians?)
thpn
mike1reynolds wrote:
It says point blank in the Bible that the Roman gods were in fact demons.


I don't think it says that they were demons but it can possibly hold the vision of the Jews seeing them as demonic. So, I would like to know where it says that.

Quote:
Even though Jesus was a Jew, all of the Jewish Christian texts were destroyed and their followers killed. Only the Roman texts adhered to by converted demon worshipers were allowed in the Bible.


What!?! Have you read the Old Testament? You do know that it is the Bible too, don't you? It was entirely written by Jewish prophets, kings, and Jews that God worked through. And what Roman's had a say in the bible. The bible was formed by placing the writtings together and was done by Catholic preists. Yes, I know there is more than one Bible but the Catholic was the first Christian one. The Jewish had the early Torah or the Old Testament.

Quote:
Christianity started as an exclusively Semitic religion, Jesus said, “I came only for the Jews”. Paul alone broke ranks and approached gentiles, and was severally chastised by all his fellow Christians for doing so, as recorded in the Bible.


Again, WHAT?!? It says in the Bible that he came for all lost sheep, that means all sinners. He came because "There will be moy joy in heaven over a single sinner who repentss, than a dozen righteous people who have no need to".

Quote:
Yet it was still a Semtiphilic religion until the Romans killed most of the Jewish Christians and destroyed all their records of Jesus, turning Christianity against Jesus’ own race. Only then did it become nearly impossible to convert Jews.


Where do you get this stuff from? I have already told you this so I will repeat myself. "The New Testament is part of the Bible." It was never destroyed, because I read part of it last night.
And don't tell me that it is 'edited by the Romans' because if it was then someone would be protesting to stop reading the Bible because it is not true. Or the Church would tell us something about it.
mike1reynolds
thpn wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
It says point blank in the Bible that the Roman gods were in fact demons.


I don't think it says that they were demons but it can possibly hold the vision of the Jews seeing them as demonic. So, I would like to know where it says that.

I will have to get back to you on this. It was about 8 years ago that I picked up a Bible and randomly opened it to some post-Gospel New Testament book and read this statement. To paraphrase from memory, it said not to eat food that had been offered at the alter in Roman temples because the food had been offered to demons.

I spent a few minutes searching for it on biblegateway.com last evening, but I’ve been very busy with another issue. I’ll get to it later today.

thpn wrote:
Quote:
Even though Jesus was a Jew, all of the Jewish Christian texts were destroyed and their followers killed. Only the Roman texts adhered to by converted demon worshipers were allowed in the Bible.


What!?! Have you read the Old Testament? You do know that it is the Bible too, don't you? It was entirely written by Jewish prophets, kings, and Jews that God worked through. And what Roman's had a say in the bible. The bible was formed by placing the writtings together and was done by Catholic preists. Yes, I know there is more than one Bible but the Catholic was the first Christian one. The Jewish had the early Torah or the Old Testament.

I was referring to texts on Jesus, which obviously excludes the Old Testament.

thpn wrote:
Quote:
Christianity started as an exclusively Semitic religion, Jesus said, “I came only for the Jews”. Paul alone broke ranks and approached gentiles, and was severally chastised by all his fellow Christians for doing so, as recorded in the Bible.


Again, WHAT?!? It says in the Bible that he came for all lost sheep, that means all sinners. He came because "There will be moy joy in heaven over a single sinner who repentss, than a dozen righteous people who have no need to".

No, Matthew says, “the lost sheep of Israel.”

thpn wrote:
Quote:
Yet it was still a Semtiphilic religion until the Romans killed most of the Jewish Christians and destroyed all their records of Jesus, turning Christianity against Jesus’ own race. Only then did it become nearly impossible to convert Jews.

Where do you get this stuff from? I have already told you this so I will repeat myself. "The New Testament is part of the Bible." It was never destroyed, because I read part of it last night.
And don't tell me that it is 'edited by the Romans' because if it was then someone would be protesting to stop reading the Bible because it is not true. Or the Church would tell us something about it.

Obviously the New Testament was not destroyed. I referred previously to the Gospel of Thomas and the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. Although I know nothing about the possible value of the later and am not necessarily referring to it, the former is widely recognized by many Christian theologians as an extremely important document on Christ that was destroyed by the earlier Church. According to the church’s own records they destroyed roughly 90% of the material on Jesus.
mike1reynolds
Found it:

[18] Consider the people of Israel:[c] are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? [19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

1 Corinthians 10 (English Standard Version)
AftershockVibe
So... your actual "thesis" is that the Bible, specifically the latter part about Jesus (ie the New Testament) was in fact not compiled by holy men but by politicians at the time.

Well... I'd completely agree with you. Especially considering at the time the politicians were the holy men (and vice versa). I'm not sure why you had to stick in the flame-provoking rubbish about "demonic Romans." You even admit that they were christian converts.

I'm not sure exactly where you're trying to go with the argument?
mike1reynolds
AftershockVibe wrote:
I'm not sure why you had to stick in the flame-provoking rubbish about "demonic Romans."

I apologize to any Romans that I have offended for quoting the Bible about their religion. Or perhaps you are objecting the impecise lanuage and would be appeased by ny saying, "Roman followers of the demonic Roman religion who converted in name only..." But I think that demonic Romans gets the point across just fine to any Christian worth debating with.


AftershockVibe wrote:
You even admit that they were christian converts.

You mentioned that before and I addressed the issue. You would have to address my reply and state the nature of your confusion over those statements, because it really seems quite straight forwards to me and so it is impossible for me to guess at what the nature of your confusion might be.
Tex_Arcana
AftershockVibe wrote:
So... your actual "thesis" is that the Bible, specifically the latter part about Jesus (ie the New Testament) was in fact not compiled by holy men but by politicians at the time.

Well... I'd completely agree with you. Especially considering at the time the politicians were the holy men (and vice versa). I'm not sure why you had to stick in the flame-provoking rubbish about "demonic Romans." You even admit that they were christian converts.

I'm not sure exactly where you're trying to go with the argument?


It certainly starts to make more sense when you throw away all the demon rubbish. Anyone that knows history knows that the Roman Church has always been as much if not more a political entity as it is a spiritual entity. All their writing except in a very few instances were stilted to that goal. Also most religions branching from the Roman Church based upon those writings also took that goal.

Not sure what all the demon talk was about. I think maybe you were trying to piss off Christians. I think mostly all you will accomplish is pissing off Pagans even though we know that the Gods of the old religion tend to become the demons of the new one.
mike1reynolds
Why would Christians be pissed off Biblical references? That doesn't make any sense. The Bible is replete with references to pagan gods being demons and idol worship being demon worship. While I actually accept this at face value I also assert that it is the main problem with Judao-Christianity: it had no contact with any other monotheistic religion in it’s formative phase. So now it projects the demonic nature of it’s childhood companions onto all other monotheistic world religions.

You are right, while I intended to provoke Christians, not by calling the Roman gods demons, but by calling into question the authority of the Bible, all that I actually seem to have done is provoke pagans and atheists. So I might as well do it whole hog!

Let me ask a questions first though, don’t pagans believe in angels and demons?

Ever seen the movie Sparticus? It is a docudrama, a classic with Kirk Douglas. They lined the streets with a hundred thousands crucified slaves who banded together to try to escape the peninsula. It was just one of an endless sequence of genocidal events.

Caesar is one my favorite historical figures. Full of compassion he never had a conservative Optimate Roman put to death, even though he lived in one of the most bitter periods of political violence in history. When Cato committed suicide after his army was defeated by Caesar, Caesar openly wept for Cato on the battlefield, loudly wailing, “Why wouldn’t he let me pardon him?!” Never the less, even compassionate Caesar is estimated to have killed upwards of a million people in his conquest of Gaul.

Bruce was going on about how religiously tolerant the Romans were, as long as you worshiped the emperor as a god, or they’d kill you. But religious butchering was not their major sin, the Romans were the masters of political violence.


To begin with the Teutonic religion followed the teachings of an enlightened teacher, Odin, but later it turned into a sham of his memory. In honor of his having impaled himself upside down on the Tree of Life for 9 days in order to obtain the ruin stones, the Viking death cults would murder their victims in this fashion.

Demons creep in, sometimes over time, sometime quite abruptly. It is pretty straightforward to identify. Violence, narrow mindedness, brainwashing, cultism. Fundamentalist Christianity definitely has a serious demonic encroachment. Islam was born demonic.

Animistic shamanism is not necessarily demonic, there were some very heavy native American shamanistic traditions. The Aztec religions was overtly demonic. Etc, etc…
livilou
I'm going back to the first post by mike1reynolds on this one, since I caught it late in the game.

Jesus did in fact say that He had come to save the people of Israel, but if you'll check later text, after He had risen from the grave, He sent His disciples to go out and preach to all nations.

Paul was not the first person to preach to the Gentiles, Peter was. He had the keys and only he could unlock the door for Gentiles to follow the teachings of Jesus (Matt 16:19). Check Acts 10. I'm not saying that Paul wasn't given a hard time because he preached to the Gentiles, I am stating that he's not the one that started it. The reason Paul went to the Gentiles to preach was because the Jews were still didn't trust him because of the persecution he had put them through before.
mike1reynolds
livilou wrote:
I'm going back to the first post by mike1reynolds on this one, since I caught it late in the game.

Jesus did in fact say that He had come to save the people of Israel, but if you'll check later text, after He had risen from the grave, He sent His disciples to go out and preach to all nations.

Paul was not the first person to preach to the Gentiles, Peter was. He had the keys and only he could unlock the door for Gentiles to follow the teachings of Jesus (Matt 16:19). Check Acts 10. I'm not saying that Paul wasn't given a hard time because he preached to the Gentiles, I am stating that he's not the one that started it.

Yea, I know, the mistake was a combination of deep dyslexia (Peter – Paul) and a brain fart – I was actually thinking of them both at the same time, rolling them into one.

So if Jesus commanded them all to preach to all nations why is it that only Peter and Paul obeyed? Why would all of the other Christians be so upset at Paul at such a late date after Jesus supposedly instructed them all to do exactly what Paul was doing?

Another clue is in the repeated references to circumcision with regards to converts in the New Testament. It indicates that a very large percentage of early Christians were Jewish as well as the fact that a sort of conversion to Judaism was required in converting to Christianity at that time. I can’t remember the exact reference, but one fellow, Titus, expresses surprise as the restriction is relaxed, exclaiming, “so and so didn’t even make me get circumcised!” In Acts 10:45 the circumcised believers express shock at the fact that even the gentile converts were given the gift of the Holy Spirit. This points to the fact that all the prominent Christians were Jews.

So for a number of reasons I doubt the veracity of the post-resurrection command to preach to all nations. The Christians were running for their lives much of the time, especially after the Diaspora in all the chaos and pressure I think that they did what they had to in order to help the movement survive. The gospels show indications of a number of embellishments before being hammered down, embellishments to appeal to specific audiences resulting in the well known contradictions between the gospels as well as anachronistic references to the Diaspora chaos that could not have been going on during Jesus’ much more peaceful time period.
mike1reynolds
As to Peter supposedly receiving the keys, so said the Romans! You know how I feel about that, I wouldn't put any embellishment past them when it came to the rivalry between the 2nd and 3rd century Roman followers of Peter’s tradition and the Jewish followers of Thomas’ tradition, which was eventually whipped out by Peter’s tradition.

Many mainstream theologians consider the Gospel of Thomas to be older and to be part of the source for some of the gospels. The Gospel of Thomas has many verses similar to Biblical verses, but in simplified form without any of the anachronistic references. The Gospel of Thomas also appears to have been written on the run, it is not a narrative, it is simply a sequence of teachings apparently written down in haste in order to preserve the teachings as best as possible under difficult conditions.

The scene where Peter recieves the keys goes differently in the Gospel of Thomas. When Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am”, Peter says, “You are like a just messenger”, which doesn’t cut it, but Thomas says, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus replies, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." Instead of getting keys (in what form?) he gives Thomas spiritual power:

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries there was a bitter rivalry between the Roman followers of Peters lineage and Jewish followers of Thomas’ lineage, eventually resulting in the complete annihilation of Thomas’ lineage and the destruction of all but a few tiny fragments of his gospel until the 1940’s. In the course of this rivalry, I assert that more embellishments were made to the canonical gospels by the Romans politicians who were reformed demon worshipers, in order to trump Jesus' conference of greatest authority on Thomas.


The Roman's where so good at doing this sort of thing that even emperors were not immune, far from it! When the Flavian emperors usurped the Julian emperors they maligned Caligula, Claudius and Nero so successfully that it is only in the past decade that it has been revealed that Caligula was a competent architect rather than retarded imbecile, hardly more than an animal. Claudius is portrayed in nearly every history book as physically deformed with a sever speech impediment, and Nero is portrayed as a psychotic. The real truth about Claudius and Nero has yet to be recovered.

If they did it to emperors in such extreme fashion how much easier to do it in this much milder fashion to Jewish political outsiders?
Related topics
disguised as freedom
F. Nietzsche
Pro's and Con's of Being a Christian
Vegetarianism
Support Danish
Is there only ONE God?
The Truth About Easter
Bible Compiled By Demonic Roman Empire
who is mohammad? the prophete of islam
Qur'an attacks validity of Bible
What if your beliefs are wrong?
Most peaceful religion
What or Who Created God? Any ideas?
Versions of THE Holy Bible
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.