Chances are what happened over the years is that if someone in power did not like something in the bible or what was then currently held beliefs or practices, then, he/she changed it to suit their needs.

That and of course the original translators may have gotten bits wrong or altered them, if they sounded funny. The simple answer is that we really do not know.

Actually, by 350 AD there were three major groups of christians and many smaller cults or groups in great errror. The three groups, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and lesser known groups like the Paterines and Ana-Baptist had equal portions of christendom. Each contributed to the history of the faith or lack thereof.

http://www.firstmbc.faithweb.com/doctrine/chart.htm
http://www.firstmbc.faithweb.com/doctrine/trail.html

And the blood of millions of saints, Orthodox and others, before Luther helped to pave the way for Luther. Orthodox and others were marytred for not accepting the Pope as the head of the church and for any infringement of the rites, traditions, and ex cathedras from mother Rome. Yes, most of the Western denominations stem from the Roman Catholic church. Yet others do still persist who never needed a refromation.

http://www.reformed.org/books/fox/fox_martyrs.html

I just have to point out the fact that you are using biased material provided by the Missionary Baptist Church. The trail of blood, a document of church history used by that Baptist branch, has been proven has been proven false by most major Christian denominations including other Baptist groups like the Southern and Free Will Baptist.

If your gonna use documentation please try to use ecumenical sources.

Thanks,
Joshua

How easy would it be to find unbias material probably impossible

I had heard of this trail of blood history, and initially thought it was odd, since modern historians credit the Baptist church as a breakoff of the anabaptist (amish/mennonite) movement, and the anabaptist movement began in the time of Luther.

I did a quick search, and found this on a baptist history site:



Here is the website Baptist History

Based on this, along with what I have learned on Christian history, it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that the Baptist church has roots that pre-date the Roman Catholic church.

Some other resources parallelling Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

http://homecomers.org/mirror/
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christian_marty...nPersIntro.html

I also believe the cathlics are wrong and or hiding something, I for one am an anthromorphic dragon trapped in human form and long to go home or at least get my true form back, teeth, claws, tail and all, perhaps I even had wings, who knows

lol i read the bible was found 1000 years ago

Since the bible was never "lost", it would be odd to "find" it 1,000 years ago.

Has anyone read the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown? It's a work of fiction with a lot of facts thrown in as well. I haven't finished the book yet but it seems to have a bearing on this subject. Mainly that the establishment decided which gospels to include, based on which ones were most handy for them to retain power.

I have been meaning to read it. The fundamentalist hate this book, and believe it is intended to mislead Christians. I am curious and open-minded about it, and will read it eventually.

There was a special on the history channel recently (i missed it unfortunately) about thirteen books of the original bible that have never been published, and where banned by the Vatichan.(however you spell it) Think on this, it would be heaven for anyone (like me) who want to know everything, to get into the Vaticans Library. All the historical documents strored there are incredible. All of galileo's works, davinchi's notebooks, so on and so on. THe church keeps copies of the arguments of all their opposition of old. The orginal scientists, historivcal figures. It must be a treasure trove of knowledge. I would kill to get in there. They could be hidding anything lost in their shelves. The only place I'd like to be more, is the secret Papal vault, were the things deemed too dangerous for anyone other than the pope are kept. Things that might be able to entirely disprove the churches beliefs all together. Such as the banned thirteen books. hmmmmmmmmmm. While all of this is mostly rumor, rumors are usually distortions of fact.

Hmmm.....

there's really no Original Vatican Catholic bible...

All of the materials back then were all written in scrolls and were all "Armaic" or "Aramaic" ; which is the spoken language of Jesus Christ.

All of these documents were all collected during the Second Niceane Council, wherein all of the religious leaders during that time voted to make Jesus Christ to be "the Son of God" ... or a God.

They had to make Jesus not a man, not a teacher or rabbi, not a prophet, but a Living God, who sacrificed His Life for us.

... this was the version the Vatican wanted all the Christian people to embrace. They wanted to create a "Social Order" by controllling the people.

Anyone who oppose their wishes, were all called Heretics, Devil worshippers, witches, and were killed or burned at the stake.

...and they have achieved it. Although, Martin Luther and his co-authors re-created
the "King James version" for the Protestant believers.

But you know what, its not who holds the Original True Bible that is Important, but what is more important is hoe you lived your Life in accordance to the Teachings of Jesus.

Edgar Cayce, the famous sleeping prophet was once asked, about the Holy Bible... and his reply was something like, its not important to possess it, but whats important is how you live your life in accordance to the will of God (something like that)

so just do what is Right and do no wrong, despite the many temptations in life...

The books you are referring to are the apocrophal writings, and they are available for purchase.

As far as what they say versus what they prove, I will let you decide for yourself.

Actually, there is an original catholic Bible. Its called the vulgate, and it is the original latin translation of the works collected and incorporated into the Bible, although they were originally written in either Aramaic or Greek (some New Testament works)



Actually, there view of Jesus was that he was 100% man and 100% divine, completely inseparable (much like baking a cake---You mix in the ingredients, but you can never break them down to the original eggs and flour and wheat).

They were trying to fight off a lot of wrong views, like the gnostic views of a solely divine Jesus (who would take a special group of chosen Christians to the highest level of Heaven) and the Jewish views of a solely human Jesus (who may have been a prophat, in their view).



True enough, the Vatican did get very involved in politics after the fall of Rome and did actively fight any alternate teachings that came up, right up through the 1800s.

It was not until Vatican II in the 1950s that the idea of other Christian churches as legitimate began to gain a sliver of acceptance. I believe the official verbage is that the Roman Catholic church subsists within the Holy Christian Church of God. This leaves room for other churches, although the Catholic church so far has only accepted the Orthodox churches as ecumenical.



A slight correction, if I may. Martin Luther was not involved in the creation of the KJV, although he indirectly inspired it. He did translate the Bible into the German vernacular and distribute it more widely amongst the layity, something which had never been done. The KJV was written in England in 1611, commissioned by King James I (also King James the VI of Scotland).

The KJV was based on the Greek sepuigent, a version that was the Greek transaltion of the aramaic texts (except for those books that were written in Greek). The KJV excluded 7 books that were in the Catholic Bible.



Very well said!

For those of you who can read latin and have tons of time on your hands

Obviously, few people know latin, now as well as then.

Of course in those times, Bibles were hand copied (pre-printing press) and as such were very expensive (I would guess in modern day currency maybe $100,000. They were generally only kept at churches and monastaries for cost reasons.

Of course they would hide all evidence of an"other testament". It was in the best interests of all the higher-up popple serving the pope...even back then. Yet, I do not find it surprising. people, men woman, in power are under great strain to not only keep their power but also, ultimately take care of the people....sometime judgments are made in the best interests of the popple.....even if it is not the best idea. That is just one of the problems with humanity.......

I was raised a Southern Baptist and still am a member of that denomination to this day.From what I've been told we grew from the Anabaptist movement in time of the Lutheran Reformation.I am NOT a fundamentalist and do not hate Catholics nor the church itself.I do not believe the Catholic church is hiding any testaments nor do I think they changed the Bible to suit their teachings because,quite frankly,IMHO,some of their doctrine is unsupported by the Bible itself.I would think if they had changed it they would have made it reflect their doctrine/teachings/traditions.

I do not mean to offend my Catholic brothers and sisters,many of them probably believe that my church preachs some unsound doctrine also.That's why they are Catholics and I am Protestant,but we are all Christians and THAT is what matters the most.

ok im sorry, but this can easily discredit your argument...jack chick is a widely known "anti-catholic," so any "tracts" by him are quite easily discounted.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Although there is another post already started for Da Vinci, I would like to add here a comment that I find relevant to this subject.
I have read the Da Vinci code, a fascinating book indeed, and I have done my own research on the issues suggested. I'm not going to either reveal any plot point or rush to say what is fiction and what is not, just a small hint:
You can hide the truth better when placing it between 2 lies.

Make your own conclusions while reading the book. Make your own research. Find out for yourself what you think is factual and what you think is not.