One thing has really bothered me lately. After reading threads here and elswhere, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. The nt was entirely written or rewritten at the Council of Nicea and/or Constantantinople. The original texts were lost (burned), and we have no idea what was in them.
2. The Yeshu story in the nt is basically a rehash or hero legends such as Osiris, Heracles, Attis, Mithras, etc. The list is endless.
3. Probably "Yeshu" never really existed, at least as one person. There were literally hundreds of "Messiahs" at the time, and the Church Councils had a lot of material to sift through and come up with their new legend.

My question is this: why were the people of the fourth century so stupid as not to recognize how generic and derivative the new story was? As a child, I studied Greek, Roman and Norse legends long before reading the nt, and I laughed at the entire thing when I first read it. Not having been raised in a religion, I had no prejudice one way or another. Did not quite a few say, "But this is the same as Osiris"? I realise that the followers of Emperor Theodosius shoved everything down the peasants' throats, and murdered a lot of people for opposing the new "religion". But, I wonder, wasn't there any intelligent opposition that noticed the obvious comparisons?

I'm thinking they were either:

1 Killed
2 Transmitted the knowledge in "Secret Societies"
3 Were the ones that added these things, making them similar

hmmm... I'm sure there have been. They were probably killed early after.

I don't think so much stupid but more a long the lines of illiterate. Now whether as this was intended (by the church of the time) or not.....

When the Big Dog barks, you do as he says or you don’t bark anymore. The intelligentsia would be (and was) the ones that could see the “Emperor wore no clothes” (i.e. Christianity was a copy of the older religions) and they either were killed, jailed, or tortured until they kept quite. The peasants have historically done as they were told. However, the pagan religions continued to draw clandestine adherents until late in the Middle Ages, practicing their rituals in secret. The church, through extreme cruelty, eventually managed to extinguish most of the cults. Those that didn’t convert were burned at the stake and those that recanted were given absolution and then burned at the stake! It wasn’t a matter of intelligence but a matter of survival! When you are poor, have no rights and no place to go, you pretty well have to do what the "powers that be" tell you to do and believe (at least in public) what they tell you to believe. Such is the history of Christianity, if you can't convince them to accept your dogma, force them on the pain of death to do so!

Amen Mako!!! That's right, or at least it makes sense to me that's what happened.

And then we wind up with people too scared to say what they really think (for fear of death) but wrap themselves in the mantle of believer while they subvert what should have been.

It reminds me of a story that my mother told me of my father when he was younger. He and a group of friends (all adament atheists) had a plan to become preachers. Good money. Good reputation. Access to a tax shelter...

2 of them did, and I believe still are. So, some of those intellectuals may have gone along with it for the benefits, may have even enhanced the control and monetary aspects... even though they don't believe a lick of it.

Well... guess my #3 covered that in a way although I wasn't thinking about that aspect when I wrote it. Was thinking of inverted subversion and inverted conversion, two seperate things. So #3 is like 3 things in one... but that aspect doesn't even belong to this topic so... oops. Sorry. I thought it was interesting tho

Awsome topic btw, Gideon MAge.

I dont think the people of the 4th century were so stupid as to see the blatant similarities and copies of older rleigons/traditions. The thing is the Roman empire at the time was still wiping out all the traditions and histories other than the main one they were pushing. So by the 7th-8th century hardly anyone knew aobut them.




Oh yes there was opposition that knew the similarities; but so did the ones creating the new religon (christianity). Again history is written by the winner, and the one who wields the sword. Its their version that is taught to the next generation.

Illiterate? Well, everytime someone says that ancient civilizations couldn't build certain structures, the skeptics say that we don't give them enough credit. Now they call them illiterate. What if there was a very good reason to believe these things? Possible evidence back then?

Here's more information on it as well:

http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Jesus was pore himself. A peasant. If anything, the bible was written FOR the peasants, not the "big dogs". Don't forget that that is exactly what happened to Jesus. He was killed for preaching what he believed was true. They didn't like it so they got rid of him.


Just my opinion.

correct, the gospels were written from a peasant point of view, they constantly take the peasant side of issues. id say that most of it would be missed by an audience that didnt know what there were looking for, like most of us.
you are still holding to that? oh well, i guess nothing will convince you otherwise.

If you think you know better please inform us of exactly how the NT was put together and by whom, where and at what time.

*Note: I am not concerned with when the letters/gospels where written and by whom.

which goes along with my original question.


a book written to oppress peasants usually claims humility.

what you are referring to is stated as my opinion. I realise xians are opposed to individual thinking. BTW, Karl Marx and Hitler stole the "peasant" guise and both re-used it brilliantly. However, Communism is toppling little by little, and so is Fascism, whether Christian or not. Why, however would a book written by Jews, which the nt is not, appeal to the subjugation of the masses by subverting intelligence? The Jews were the intelligent ones. They were promoting literacy for three thousand years! To every land to which the Jews have been exiled, they brought education, culture, and theatre! Even in the early United States, often a Jew would be found to be mayor, as the only adult for hundreds of miles who could read! I can imagine a typical conversation:

"What's the letter from the governor say?"
"I dunno- Why don't we go get the Jew Guy and get him to read it to us."
"Hey! Hyman Cohen! Read this letter to us."
"It says, the governor is going to let us incorporate as the town of "Old Grimy Gulch."
"Wow! Can you be the Mayor, so you can read the mail and tell us what the goverment wants us to do!"
"But who will run my farm? My whole mishpachah will starve!"
"No problem! We'll just come get you when we need you to be mayor! We'll even pay you!"
"Wait, there's money involved? I'll do it!"

Sort of what goes around comes around. This happened literally in hundreds of towns in the "old west". After 1500 years of Xian oppression, finally someone was needed because they were outside the chain of suppression of learning! Thank you for pointing out that the nt is anti-intellectual and peasant oriented. thank you.

You know GM I was waiting for you to post to the comment about who wrote the bible before i commented now i see what you wrote and all i can do is

I did think I responded. I have yet to see Something like laughter deny the existance of Emperor Theodosius directly. Theodosius, however, was a real man, and really convened the council of constantinople, and really burned the library at alexandria and the pagan temples, all over the roman empire. why discard the truth? xianity is basically anti-learning and anti-intellectual. what i was wondering is how the people of the fourth century were so gullible, when the pagan legends and literature were still available to make the more than obvious conclusion that the nt was very derivative. if the critics of today lived back then they would have panned it in their reviews as generic.

Osiris

* Had well over 200 divine names, including Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods, Resurrection and the Life, Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who "made men and women to be born again." The titles I have found ascribed to Osiris are [Fraz.AAO] Lord of All, the Good Being (the most common title), Lord of the Underworld, Lord/King of Eternity, Ruler of the Dead, [Griff.OO] Lord of the West, Great One, [Bud.ERR, 26] "he who takes seat," the Begetter, the Ram, [Bud.ERR, 79] "great Word" (as in, "the word of what cometh into being and what is not" -- a reflection of the ancient idea of the creative power of speech, found likewise in the Greek Logos), "Chief of the Spirits"; [Short.EG, 37] ruler of everlastingness, [Meek.DL, 31] "living god," "God above the gods." All of these are either general titles we would expect to be assigned to any head honcho deity, or else are related to O's command over the underworld. None of the ones cited closest and uniquely like unto Jesus were found.
* Coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris' star in the east, Sirius, significator of his birth. Freke and Gandy repeat only the last part about the star. But while some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, they do not know anything about wise men or a star in the east.
* Was a devoured Host. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat, the 'plant of Truth'. Not that anyone in the scholarly lit has reported.
* The 23rd Psalm copied an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris the Good Shepherd to lead the deceased to the 'green pastures' and 'still waters' of the nefer-nefer land, to restore the soul and body, and to give protection in the valley of the shadow of death... If this is so, no commentator in Egyptian religion or the OT knows about it. Osiris would possibly be known as a shepherd as such imagery was common in the ANE, but I have not seen it yet applied to him by anyone but mythicists.
* The Lord's Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning, 'O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.' Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer. If so, we want to know where this prayer is recorded, and so would experts in Egyptian religion. The Hebrew "Amen" is never used as a salutation and means "let it be so" which means it is not "invoked" as a deity is. Beyond that, let's see an etymological connection based on the original languages, not on the correspondence of English characters.
* The teachings of Osiris and Jesus are wonderfully alike. Many passages are identically the same, word for word. If so, someone other than Achy's source, James Churchward, needs to put them side by side and prove it. The Egyptian religious scholars don't seem aware of it.
* As the god of the vine, a great traveling teacher who civilized the world. Ruler and judge of the dead. This is a bit non-specific. Frazer reported [Fraz.AAO, vii, 7] that Osiris taught winemaking and agriculture, gave the Egyptians laws, taught them proper worship, and traveled the word teaching these things. But this is the claim that was made of Dionysus as well, and we have answered that point within that essay. Not that it matters, since it seems only Frazer and later Freke and Gandy have an idea that the two are connected. Literature written by scholars of Egyptian religion do not treat them as the same, though some connect Osiris and Orion, and Budge notes the travels but does not connect Osiris and Dionysius [Bud.ERR, 9]. In any event Osiris is nowhere called a "god of the vine". He is ruler and judge of the dead, but this doesn't describe Jesus, who represents a God who is not God of the dead, "but of the living." At most it represents what might be expected of any supreme deity: to rule and to judge.
* In his passion, Osiris was plotted against and killed by Set and "the 72." This is a combination of terminological fudging, half-truth, and irrelevancy. There was no "passion" -- in the incident alluded to, O. was indeed plotted against by Set. There was a big party, at which Set had a coffin brought in and encouraged everyone, including 72 participants in the scheme and one queen of Ethiopia, to lay down for a fit. Finally it came O's turn, and he was persuaded to lay down in the coffin. Once O was inside, Set nailed the coffin shut and threw it in the river; O suffocated. Note that the 72 here are enemies of O, not his disciples: only the number -- a multiple of 12, a number we still hold in regard today when we purchase eggs and donuts -- is a common touchpoint (and that only in some mss. of Luke 10; others put the number at 70, possibly representing the number of Gentile nations, according to the Jews). They do nothing at all that could be considered like what Jesus' disciples did. As the story goes further, O's wife Isis went looking for the coffin. She found it in Syria, where it had been incorporated into the pillar of a house. She lamented so loudly that some kids in the house died of fright. Later she took it out, opened it up, then went looking for Horus. Meanwhile Set found the coffin and tore the body in 14 pieces which he threw all over the place. In one result Isis went looking for the pieces and buried them as she found them. An alternate story has Isis, Anubis, and Ra piecing the body together, swathing it with bandages, and reviving him

Perhaps, GM, this was accepted as Truth, because it IS Truth...... Christians existed well before the convening of the councils of both Constantinople and Nicaea. It's not as if there was suddenly a new doctrine or a new teaching.

People believed because there is reasonable proof within the Bible itself that it is Truth.

Just a thought perhaps.

Regards, PA

so, when titles like this were used in the hebrew scriptures, then used to refer to Yeshu, it is because they are generic, and are no proof he was really god? Of course. thanks.

in this and the rest of your post, you don't acknowledge a source. Whom are you quoting?

devoured gods/hosts were very common in the pagan world, but not a Jewish concept.
the 23 psalm has nothing to do with Yeshu. it is a prayer, supposedly written by David, to YHVH
"Amen" was said at the end of all Egyptian prayers, after a certain Pharoah tried to institute motheism. The custom survived his death. The fact that Hebrew uses the term and gives it a different etymology are irrevalent.


* more proof how generic and contrived Yeshu is. Thanks,
and Yeshu's wife, mary magdalene, was the one who found him alive?a perfect match, the circumstances are different, but the original pagan symbolism is preserved in the nt! Of course!

if it was truth, then why the necessity to force it on others? why the murders and executions? are you justifying that? xianity would have died out if not forced on the roman empire. Have you even looked up Theososius? It should have spread like wildfire without Theo's "help", but it was almost dead before the 4th century began, a pitiful dying Jewish cult, until imposed on the Roman Empire by force.

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64


Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Again, I dont think its a matter of people being gullible or not GM, its a "YOU WILL BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" The christian roman empire ruthlessly killed anyone who would question their authority on the matter of relgion or even those who dared compare it to the older religons.

I am not denying, nor advocating anything that Theodosius did. The Bible is filled with evil actions of men being used by God for good. The Babylonians and the Assyrians conquering Israel and Judah, for example, while the work of powerful nations, is attributed to God as punishment for the sins of Israel and Judah. Likewise, it was evil humans who crucified Jesus in the first place, also fulfilling God's wishes through Jesus' death on the cross.

Note though that I am not endorsing THeodosius' actions. BUt I'm just saying that the past is the past, we cannot change it. For better or for worse, it just is. You cannot blame any Christian living today for the actions of anyone else. We are all responsible for our own actions, and only our own. Judge a tree by its fruit, GM. Judge each individual according to their actions, not on the actions of their predecessors.

Regards, PA

this is great-the testimonium has been refuted as an obvious forgery elsewhere , so I won't comment. the early nineties were not the fourth century. the original xian cult, the "Nazarenes" (in hebrew "christians" are still called "Notzrim") were pretty much gone by then, almost extinct. the later versions of the nt contain mainly (check out how many pages) based on Paul and his lunatic ravings. I'll bet you didn't even read up on Emperor Theodosius, did you?

Agreed, this most definately was a forgery.Surely if the passage was indeed written by Josephus, christians prior to the 4th century would have used it to back their claims. This passage was not actually produced until the 4th century by Bishop Eusebius the propagandist of the Roman Church.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. Matthew 7:1

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

These are books which describe the life of Jesus. Gospel is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news." About 50 gospels were written in the first and second century CE; each was believed to be accurate by various groups within the early Christian movement. Four of them (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) were accepted by the early Christian movement as inspired by God. They were approved for inclusion in the official canon during the 4th century CE, and are found today in every Bible. Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus explained: "There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of a few passages from an unknown gospel. Another ancient manuscript, a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. Remaining gospel manuscripts date to the third century CE or later

source link

Ah yes PA, there were christians prior to the councils, many differnet kinds of christian sects with all VERY different beliefs. Some believed JEsus was divine, others not, some where gnostic, some were part. The point is there were multiple christian 'TRUTHS' alot in direct conflict with each other. Who was correct and who was wrong, well it didnt matter cuz aftet the councils the roman empire decided who was right and who was wrong, and then killed all the 'other' versions of christianity.

Agreed. I chose the word "judge" poorly. The Bible never actually says JUDGE a tree by its fruit. It uses instead phrases such as "by their fruit will they be known".......

Regards, PA

Obviously additions had been added to it. Those have been removed from what I posted and are not present.

Not too different to how things are today

That was what the first question that started the thread was about.
Just by that thread question and many other statements I have seen there actually exists a large group who apparently believe that the Romans came up with the whole thing from scratch in the 300s ad.

Correct; at the behest of Theodosius.
right after they burned them.
exactly. Of course. You are proving some of my points. Supporting evidence is great. Thanks.

I disagree. They were very different. Take a deep look into gnostic-christianity and you will see its very different than any of the christian denomonations today. Note that all current christians denomenations stem from the one concocted by the roman empire, and thus have minor differences. Prior to the councils, they even used different texts which portrayed Jesus, and his philosophies in quite a different light.

Also take the belief of reincarnation for example. Most christians believed in reincarnation right up until 545 AD.



Source: http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-pope.htm

That is so historically wrong.
There were many different types of Christians in different nations.
Some still exist in spite of Rome, not because of it.

So you have never studied about Theodosius?

actually, a large percentage of jews still believe in reincarnation.

I relize that Gideon-Mage , thats why I was refering to christians.

There was a mass destruction and burning long before.

The emperor Diocletian, tolerant of Christians for almost twenty years after coming to power in 284, suddenly decrees in 303 that all churches are to be destroyed, all sacred texts and precious liturgical vessels confiscated, and meetings for worship forbidden. It is the beginning of a brief period known in Christian history as the Great Persecution.

I still laugh whenever this is said. There are no other copies because they were burned. We have no evidence of other copies because it was burned. In other words, you have no evidence of anything you are saying, but it doesn't matter because if it wasn't burned, the evidence would be there

I am an Arius Christian.

I'll be completely honest to say i havent studied much on the writings of the New Testament- instead of following the stories of the Bible and the occurances- i try to follow the moral code- which is beautifully preserved in Proverbs and Psalms...The Roman Empire doesn't explain the high Christian rate in say Africa- or does it? I'm confused about that...Well im here to learn and if anyone can provide more info it'd be great. Yet i agree the past is well and truely the past. Christianity has had a bad past- but look at the world- almost everything has had a bad past- humanity in general has had a bad past.
I also believe these assumptions are nothing but "assumptions" - about the New Testament being a load of baloney...Gideon you have such a great view on Jews- who you say influenced the world in many ways- how about the lovely arab neighbors? I'm half arab and heard the Arabs / Phoenicians were excellent in technology and power.So yeah basically i follow the general moral behaviour mentioned in the Bible towards other people and my respect and thanking to God- to me...that attitude could never "run old".

Of course the arabs invented Algebra (al gebra?), and, in their heyday, had many scientific geniuses. ALso, when the xians exiled the jews on many occasions, the arab world was their only safe haven for humdreds of years until modern fundie muslim anti-semitism. large protions of northern africa were owned by the roman empire for hundreds of years. I am glad you like psalms (written by king david-well maybe) and proverbs (by king solomon-well, maybe). thank god they were not in the new testament, or they might have been edited out along with the gospels of mary and thomas.

OMG. You don't quit do you? Let' start from the begining:


1. The nt was entirely written or rewritten at the Council of Nicea and/or Constantantinople. The original texts were lost (burned), and we have no idea what was in them.

The Council of Nicea was something like Vatican II, it was supposed to officialize (sp?)
a common doctrine for the christian religion. You believe the NT was written at the Council? Wrong, there is suficient proof that the four Gospels already existed. You say they were rewritten? Can't. How do I know it? Imagine that today the Pope comes out and says "In Luke ## from now on will be changed, we will rewritten and Jesus shall be gay.". What do you think Christians will do? "Ok, do it. See if I care.". I don't think so. Christians already knew the teachings so the Roman Empire couldn't change it. You can't rewrite Odissea and expect people to fall for it.
However, there were other texts, those were what is called "heresy". We have found some of those junk pieces like the Wife of Jesus and other texts where Jesus, in his childhood, used his super powers to bully his mates. It is a good thing they burnt them or now instead of thousands of christian sects we would have millions.

2. The Yeshu story in the nt is basically a rehash or hero legends such as Osiris, Heracles, Attis, Mithras, etc. The list is endless.

Oh I sooo love this one . It is such a stupid statement (not you, the guys who come up with this theory). Why do I say it? Hmm, let me begin by saying that Jesus doesn't say anything new (confused?), not one single is new. They are the base teachings of primitive Judaism. Everything. Jesus function was to guide jews back their trail and to start the evangelisation (don't know if you say that in english), by other words, start spreding the good news amongst every human being.

"But, Jesus even had long hair like Poseidon, how come it be not a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V story?" I'm sorry if this will shock you but the summary of the NT had been written hundreds of years before Jesus arrival. The prophets of Israel predicted how the Messiah would be and what would he do. Those descriptions match the NT's (of course you can say they wrote the NT in order to fullfill those prophecies but if you say that then you have to discard the theory that it is a plagiarism of other cults ) so the NT can only have been written based on the AT.
Now let's check out that sentence once more:

The Yeshu story in the nt is basically a rehash or hero legends such as Osiris, Heracles, Attis, Mithras, etc. The list is endless.

Exactly. Law of probabilities. From those cults only about 5% of the text in each one has some similarities with the Gospels (even if you can say that 100% of the NT has similarities with some other story), however, as you say there are thousands of cults that share the same content with the NT. By other words, that would make the ocurrence of 0% of the NT sharing common content with other cults/legends really suspicious, not the opposite.


3. Probably "Yeshu" never really existed, at least as one person. There were literally hundreds of "Messiahs" at the time, and the Church Councils had a lot of material to sift through and come up with their new legend.

Uh? First, there were not undreds of Messiahs at that time, until Jesus, the number of false Messiahs would be around 30 and none of them had the following Jesus did, not even close. For the second part, read again my comment on 1.

My question is this: why were the people of the fourth century so stupid as not to recognize how generic and derivative the new story was?

1. Well, everyone is entitled to his own opinion but I don't think it is either generic nor derivative (I guess that makes me stupid too ) 2. They were not stupid, they were ignorant. 3. You should ask why were the people in the 1st century so stupid, not in the 4th, you know why.

As a child, I studied Greek, Roman and Norse legends long before reading the nt, and I laughed at the entire thing when I first read it. Not having been raised in a religion, I had no prejudice one way or another.

How good for you, it looks like you're quite an enlightened person. Then tell me:

In which way does the Greek legends teach the same thing? (pst, if you hadn't realise that already, greek mythology is amoral)
In which way do Roman legends have anything in common with the NT?
Ok, point taken, I gotta concede you this. Everyone knows the NT is completely based on the Norse legends, from the begining to the end. (EDIT: argh, I better not risk it - sarcasm)

Did not quite a few say, "But this is the same as Osiris"? I realise that the followers of Emperor Theodosius shoved everything down the peasants' throats, and murdered a lot of people for opposing the new "religion". But, I wonder, wasn't there any intelligent opposition that noticed the obvious comparisons?

Not until the 20th century.

PS- Sorry for the bad english and agressive mood.

Its no laughing matter, PA.

Read the Nag Hammadi. There are surviving texts that were hidden away, and not burned. So we know for a fact they exist. And they paint a very different picture of Jesus, and the NT.

Also there are numerous refrences to other texts by scholars of the time even christians refered to them. SO again we know these texts did exist, but we also have documentation of how the christians under the various roman emperors were ordered to burn them.

what kind of cheap insult was that?

we have only fragments before 325. your statement is false. the dissenting voters were exiled from the roman empire. between the two counsels, Yeshu was voted to be God, the Trinity was approved, and the date for Easter was set. Major changes. Since there were so xians at the time, whatever they said went. they burned all traces they could. Read up on Emperor Theodosius.

there were several beautiful texts that disagreed with what theodosius wanted to promulgate.
what theory? I majored in anthropology. the nt, especially the gospels, are exact copies of earlier teachings.
More like 99% matches with mithras,heracles, osiris, jason, krishna, etc. the story is very old, and always the same.

not really, most of the nt references to the tanach are twisted to reflect pagan notions.
I will give a single example-the virgin birth. the passage quoted in matthew from isaiah is based on a greek translation. the hebrew used the word "almah" young woman, because isaiah is referring to his own wife, who is about to give birth to his own third son, immanuel. the fourth century authors of the nt either didn't know, or didn't care.

http://www.light-of-israel.org/loi7.shtml

since I seriously doubt you know anything about Judiasm, I will quote it verbatim:



Please read and learn something. Thanks. From start to finish, the gospels are pagan 100%, and are clearly intended for a pagan audience. The bishops took what they could find and used it, and either didn't know, or didn't care, what was in the hebrew scriptures.

I took it as a statement of admiration for tenacity. Tossing it around trying to figure out from what perspective do I need to look at it to be able to take it as an insult... having difficulty...

The Golden Rule is not just one of many rules which God requires mankind to follow, but it is the entire law, all by itself. This is what Jesus means when He says, "this is the law and the prophets."


_____________________________________________________________

"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12 RSV)
_____________________________________________________________



Note that He says, "for this IS the law and the prophets," not "for this is required by the law and the prophets." The easiest way to follow The Golden Rule is to love all other people the same as you love yourself. When you love others as you love yourself, you will naturally do to them the same as you would like them to do to you. Thus you will be following The Golden Rule, which embodies all of God's law for mankind.

The Golden Rule implements The Law Of Love, which is "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.


"Love For Others Fulfills The Law"



Galatians 5:14 (RSV)
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself."

Romans 13:8 (RSV)
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves
his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:9 (RSV)
The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not
kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other
commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself."

Romans 13:10 (RSV)
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law.

James 2:8 (RSV)
If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture,
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.

Proverbs 10:12 (RSV)
Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

1 Peter 4:8 (RSV)
Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love
covers a multitude of sins.



And who is your neighbor? Everyone is your neighbor. This is shown in the Parable Of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, shown in the appendix below).

But what about love for God? Doesn't that come first? Yes, but God counts our love for others as if it were love for Himself. So when we love others, we are loving Him at the same time. This is shown in the Parable Of The Sheep And The Goats (Matthew 25:31-46, in the Appendix below). And we cannot claim to love God until we first love our fellow man.

It was not an insult. More like a compliment



Those weren't changes, were agreements. As you said before there were numerous sects, each one bearing a different perspective. What they did was choose the one that should become the official one. I'm not saying there wasn't any kind of pressure in order to choose the doctrine the Emperor wanted, it is irrelevant. One thing is sure, that doctrine already had followers, probably the majority. Wether it is the original one, the true one or not I can't prove, but it wasn't invented at Nicea.




I'm not saying they weren't beautiful, I'm saying they were heretic, they objected the official doctrine, just that. But seriously, have you read any of them? I have only read small passages but most of them are everything less beautiful (there are some exceptions however).



99% you say? I was saying it could be more like 100% but OK.



There you go. So what's the big deal. What are you trying to prove? For the author, acording to the translation he possessed, the quote made sense. It doesn't matter what the author meant with it but what the quoter means. For example, when Venomsucker said:



He thought it made sense. I think it makes sense (well, not in Luke's). It does, doesn't it? But, by coincidence, it is also a case of wrong interpretation.

I'm just highlighting this - good point

I'm sure Gideon is going to palm it off by saying something about Isaiah writing that passage for his wife and in regard to his children.

Even assuming the possibility that he is right (I believe it is actually a prophecy of Jesus), but let's assume that it is not. THere are stilly literally hundreds of other Old Testament quotes that reference the coming Messiah - quotes of which Jesus fulfilled every one.

Regards, PA

the very short version, the church fathers between the first and fourth centuries. much more detailed than that and it becomes a horribly confused mess.
a good set of tables showing the progress of this process is www.ntcanon.org
for a more detailed version: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
for a slightly different take on the issue or for those that are instantly nauseated at the sight of a christain website: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...er/NTcanon.html

there were two local synods that laid out canons, at Carthage and Laodicea, but they were only local decisions. for future note, religioustolerence.org isnt the greatest of sources.
umm.... 3rd century is 200s. the two councils you believe to have rewritten the NT were in the 300s. the fact that there are existant manuscripts from the third century should competely destroy that little belief of yours. but some how it keeps going.
fragments that mostly agree with later manuscripts. but still, if you want to date writings by their earliest complete manuscript, Julius Ceasar, Plato, Thucydides, and many other ancient writers are all products of the 10th century or later. your "reasoning" does not hold up when applied to other documents.
no, his statement is correct. except for his analogy, it would have been more like Constantinople II as attendance from the western bishops was very light.
all about five of them, and then later invited back.

Exactly the point.

you still haven't commented on Theodosius. Do you think him to have been imaginary? Why does everything have to be based on a belief system?

what i am worried about is how so many lives have been destroyed by xian quacks insisting that the gospels were written by the disciples and paul, preserved intact for 2000 years, and the exact word of god. so many executions.so many lives devoted to a lie.

but they were exiled; you don't deny this. what about the monster Theodosius? Don't be a coward. stop assailing me on my "beliefs". you are insisting that a few fragments prove the nt.