And this is a perfect example of why I’ve said on many occasions, today’s western/European Bibles are transcribed per the church’s control, namely the prior Council’s of Nicaea, that edited books and removed certain books from the Bible (the Apocryphal Books). Just goes to show way back then, if a part didn’t fit a simple human’s idea, importance, clear lingustic translation, or a even narratives, it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over. And done by those that had the power over the rest of the world learning all the word og God, to do so, namely the Vatican.
it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over
The only way to make this statement, and for it to be true, is to know what the original writings said in order to know that "they've been changed." Thus becoming a self defeating statement.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession. The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
You can take that to the bank (or maybe a credit union :P )
Well, get your check book out haha! Because the Ethiopian Bible was not subject to the Council’s of Nicaea, or the Vatican ever. Since the time the Queen of Sheba left Jerusalem, that country has had its own version of the Bible which is supposed to be more complete. The Ethiopian Bible of course still includes the Apocryphal books and again none of the “edits” western/European Bibles have had since then.
Strange that’s this is public knowledge in Africa, but not so much outside that continent due to Western Scholar’s historical superiority complexes haha.
Haha no of course it’s not a ticket nor am I saying that at all. I’m just presenting the fact that the Vatican has edited and “removed” things from the original Biblical format along with the Councils of Nicaea, beyond the original scriptures, even beyond what Constantine first set out. As we’ve learned even more from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the modern version of the NIV and/or King James Bibles are not “in whole” to what was originally written.
Just to ramble for a minute if I may. It would seem to me that there are quite a few fail safes God specifically created for us to find, that shows us his word is verifiable and true to its original meaning, if your willing to seek it out.
It was not a random coincidence, in my opinion, that those scrolls were found when they were found, timing is everything with God. It is even more interesting that it ends this exact debate just like that.
A brief look into some of Gods other fail safes brings us to the original Hebrew language, it combined three layers to create a unified message of revelation. It was common meaning, pictographic and numeric. Each layer contains either confirmation of the primary or conventional meaning or in many cases it shines a light on a deeper revelation God wants repeated or magnified.
And to add another personal opinion, the Bible compiled into a common language that is able to be easily carried, transported and
disseminated, and which could also be a handheld companion and common household staple has done more to damage tyrants and systems of control than any other idea or philosophy man has created. If evil men conspired to twist the Bible into a condensed version of 66 books, and hoped it would be to their benefit, it would seem that they failed miserably, because in reality it has only brought revolt and revolution with an understanding that Gods authority is supreme and it outweighs the pompous and arrogant titles and self perceived authority of mere men.
You dont really give the full picture. The council didn't already have a complete bible and decided what needs to be removed...they were examining many letters and stories claiming to be inspired and determining their history, context, and relationship to other scripture etc. Some books were not placed in the Bible because they were known attempts to lead Christians astray (many of the so called “lost books”) and others while beneficial to read, were determined not be divinely inspired by God (apocryphal books). I think of the apocryphal books as I would a book by a very knowledgeable theologian today: able to provide insight, perspective and encouragement to your faith, but not God’s divinely inspired writings.
Ethiopian Orthodox has a different 10 commandments than Catholic / Protestant. How can this be when they all have the same Bible (Exodus)? Maybe it's not the same. I don't see chapter headings and verse numbers in the picture above. That's something that translators have added to influence readers toward their own interpretation.
If the translators' opinions were taken away, the Bible books would be very different-- they would be original text. And it would have a big impact. Readers might see "The 10 Commandments" in Exodus 34:28 written on stone tablets and think those were it, instead of Exodus 20 where we've been taught.
The Ethiopian Orthodox share the same 10 commandments the Protestants do...
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS አስርቱ ተእዛዛት
I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet.
ከእኔ በቀር ሌሎች አማልክት አይሁኑልህ።
በላይ በሰማይ ካለው፥ በታችም በምድር ካለው፥ ከምድርም በታች በውኃ ካለው ነገር የማናቸውንም ምሳሌ፥ የተቀረጸውንም ምስል ለአንተ አታድርግ።
የእግዚአብሔርን የአምላክህን ስም በከንቱ አትጥራ
የሰንበትን ቀን ትቀድሰው ዘንድ አስብ
አባትህንና እናትህን አክብር
አትግደል
አታመንዝር
አትስረቅ
በሐሰት አትመስክር
የባልንጀራህን ቤት አትመኝ
The Catholic bible contains 73 books in the Old Testament including the cannon books while the Protestant Bible contains 66 books in the Old Testament.
What is a Catholic Bible?
The Catholic Bible came into existence and practiced with the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the 1st century.
It contains the teachings, literature, wisdom, and story of Jesus Christ who lived in the province of Judea in the Roma Empire.
It contains 73 books in the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes ‘Apocrypha’ the Greek version. The New Testament contains 27 books.
During the time of Jesus Christ, both the Hebrews and the Septuagint were used in the scriptures and this makes the Catholic Bible contain both scriptures.
It is published in accordance with the catholic canon law. It is officially referred to as ‘The Vulgate’. The vulgate is now officially in Latin language and used all over the world.
The catholic bible remained unchanged even after the reformation. The catholic bible contains books such as Baruch, Judith, Sirach, stories of Susanna, Tobit, Stories of Bel and Dragon which are not found in the bible used by protestants.
Here’s the thing though… the apocrypha contains historical inaccuracies and fallacies. There’s a reason it’s excluded from Protestant bibles. It was included to further the Catholic narrative - such as almsgiving, prayer for the dead, and others.
If you actually look at the scriptures referenced by Josephus, or Jesus himself, the 66 are the only true ones the Jews would’ve had access to in 1st century AD.
The Catholic bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament- 73 books total. You may want to edit your post. BTW your post was very good. Thank you
No problem. I have a Catholic Bible. The St Joseph's Edition of The New American Bible.
I just counted the Old Testament books and the New Testament books in there-
And YOU ARE CORRECT- The number of Old Testament books are 47. And 27 in the New Testament.
It is the article I linked to that is incorrect. I have no idea where they got their information. (Perhaps some of the books from the Apocrypha were omitted)
I do have the following Aprocrypha books included: Tobit, Judith, Sirach, and Baruch. But I do not have the stories of Bel, Dragon nor of Suzanna that I know of.
The King James Bible of 1611 contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible and even more in addition to those.
The books excluded from the Jewish canon by the Jews themselves were labeled as the Apocrypha, but they were still included in the published King James Bible. What the Catholics were upset about the label.
Books of the Apocrypha (14 in total - 15 if you include the Additions to Esther)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit (in Catholic bible but sometimes called Tobias)
Judith (in Catholic bible)
Additions to Esther (in Catholic bible but included at end of Esther as footnotes)
Wisdom of Solomon (in Catholic bible)
Ecclesiasticus (in Catholic bible)
Baruch (in Catholic bible)
Letter of Jeremiah (in Catholic bible but called Sirach)
You seem like you would know the answer to this, “why doesn’t the Catholic faith promote the studying of the Bible?”.
It’s not like they’re telling their parishioners not to read it, but how many homilies have you heard a priest give where they’re promoting it? I can’t think of once and my ex wife is a devout Catholic and I went to a private Catholic school..
I have no idea why they don't. I think that is changing now, though. There are Catholic Churches that hold Bible studies during the week.
My born and raised RC parents never read a bible (nor did they even own one) I asked when I bought my own as an adult. I actually left the church at one time and came back to it after much thought. I considered becoming Baptist. I realized it is more about my relationship with God than where I went to church. Church is man-made and the main reason to go is to be with like minded individuals where I can adminster to them and they to me. I really like my small rural Catholic Church here in the bible belt. I came back to the Catholic faith as it is familiar to me. I am what you might consider a Born Again Catholic, though.
Having been Catholic or raised you should know the Catholic Church has bible readings at every Mass. And our priest always discusses the three readings in his homily.
My Catholic church has a bible study every Monday but it only covers the weekly gospel readings. My sister attends one at her Catholic Church that meets weekly but they cover much more than my own Church does. She's been attending hers for years now.
I currently attend a women's bible study in my neighborhood every Thursday. We are reading the Old Testament. The woman teaching it is very good. She is Protestant. She is writing her own bible study book that will be low cost for small groups outside of churches that might wish to have a study guide. She claims the guides for churches are expensive. Anyway we are helping form the questions for the study and others are helping her edit the manuscript.
In the past, I attended a bible study here in my community with a man who once was Catholic who become a Baptist. He did a great job teaching it I miss his interpretations as he did such a great job. He moved away and has since met His Maker. We had other members of other faiths who attended including two Southern Babtists who became Roman Catholic.
I get other takes on the bible from those there who are Protestant. I know many of them might not take kindly to my faith, though. -
It’s hard for me to appreciate a religion that has so much rot from within.
I struggle with knowing that so many Catholics for so long have known about the atrocities that have taken place for decades within the church. Yet,, I can’t remember a single mass movement from within to force change within the church and that tells me the problem is much deeper than with just the leadership of the church.
I don’t believe one single Christian religion is the only way to God and since that is true to me I see no current value in what remains of the Catholic Church. Yes,,, there are good ppl that are still apart of that church, but I believe they are holding on to the idea that the Catholic Church is the only true path to God, if not that,, then why would anyone stay.?.
Every religion has rot in it bc it is man-made and man is full of sin. Didn't we just see the Dali Llama ask a young boy to kiss his tongue? The Catholic Church is NOT the only church with corruption in it.
There is no way any religion has stayed chaste they are all tainted.
The Catholic Church I am currently a member in is very small. I love that I know almost everyone there. It also has a very active Knights of Columbus group that has won awards for their service to the community given the size of my church almost every male is a Knight. We started a women's group a couple of years ago and we are busy with service to our community and our church. I also enjoy singing in my church choir. There are many benefits to joining the RIGHT church. You just have to find one you fit in with. For me it took moving out of NY State from a very progressive Catholic Church (which is why I left the church) to the bible belt of the south where we actually have Christmas (not Holiday) Parades and people openly pray.
You have hit upon the mark with the statement about rot within all structured religions. The issue at hand is not the particular denomination or religion, it is the collection of power and wealth. It is truly a special human being that can accept the role of leadership and yet remain humble and honest. Power corrupts human beings, with some exceptions. The further issue comes with these positions of authority attract a certain kind of person that desires power. In the end, this ultimately causes corruption to invade even the most wholesome structures. Mankind is not fit to lead each other, it is why we must follow God's rule. In all things, look to him for guidance. Be wary of placing your faith in the hands of another, it is our most precious gift and it belongs only to God.
I understand you love your small rural church but it is wholly a part of the Catholic Church and to that existent the Vatican.
Everything that is given to you in mass is passed down from the Vatican and if the hand that feeds is tainted then everything it touches is tainted🤷🏻♂️
Yes,,, every religion has it’s bad actors, but not every religion is systematically corrupted. I can say with 100% certainty that if I found out my church and it’s leaders had been doing what the Catholic Church had been doing I would leave. The difference for me is I don’t believe that has an effect on how God views me, loves me or my salvation.
Sheep leave when the shepherd is struck down, and Catholics are still the ones the evil fears the most, this the continued dedicated attacks against the priests abd churches. Note the recent attempt to deny communion and last rites to injured soldiers at Walter Reed.
That's weird, not sure where you've gone, but every single Catholic parish I've ever seen (all over the world) all my life has Bible studies, daily mass uses different verses from scripture and in school the kids are taught to read the Bible.
St. Thomas Aquinas Dallas Tx and multiple others within East Texas, private school was in East Texas and it was many years ago that I attended.
Yes, we had Bible verses to memorize, but we were never encouraged to read outside of what was being laid out for us at that moment. We were never encouraged to go directly to God with anything, there was always a flawed human put in between me and my creator. The idea of developing an intimate personal relationship with God is not part of Catholic dogma and it is a very flawed aspect of that religion.
Interesting, I had incredibly different experiences. In fact if they were to have taught the experiences of the saints more, it would have been easier for many to emulate examples of very successful personal relationships with Christ. The current church, infiltrated as it is, hides the writings of the saints that provide better homilies than most of the ordinary priests we'll ever hear. The current church decided not to fight injustice, not to fight for the unborn, but to fight anything at all. It funded into the weird modern protestant hiding of God from all daily life.
If you were to seek out stories of the mystics, then find their own writings, you'll see actual love letters, moments of grace, intimacy with the Holy Spirit and revelations of all sorts. Bilocation, stigmata and other miracles don't happen in isolation, they are accompanied by visions, messages, instructions. Were you ever taught the source of the Rosary, for example? Perhaps my background involved more Hispanic churches, more conservative and Marian, and South America and Europe maybe have more of a hold on old school. Perhaps America doesn't have as many saints to relate to and doesn't want to study those from other countries? Whatever the case, clearly we have many hats to address. The content is out there and if the people who accepted the jobs of shepherd aren't fulfilling their vocation fully, well, we the laymen will have to pick up the slack.
They actually forbade it in the past. That's why it was in Latin, and English translations were forbidden. A number of people died to get us the Bible in English. They wanted to be the sole holders of information. That way, they could tell us lies, and we wouldn't know better. The Sabbath is on Saturday, always. But the Pope said we should skip that commandment and have church on Sunday, the "Lord's day," because that was when the Resurrection occurred. They also lied about "Good Friday" to cause people to have a reason to doubt Jesus. Jesus said that proof of being the Messiah was that he would remain in the earth three days and three nights, just as Jonah remained in the whale (they called ever humongous fish a whale) for three days and three nights. Jesus had to be crucified on Wednesday to fulfill this condition. Good Friday only allowed a day and a half.
As per the Sabbath I was taught it was St Paul who started services on Sundays for the Gentiles to avoid confusion of services with the Jews on the Sabbath.
The Catholics wanted the whole thing confused. I hear tons of people in church refer to Sunday as "this Sabbath day." They're old, so I just keep quiet.
We could meet on Sunday, but we should never refer to it as the Sabbath. If we are to follow the Ten Commandments, then we should observe the Sabbath and not work on Saturday. Some say the confusion led some to say let's just take both days off from work. Thus the weekend. :)
When they translated from ancient hebrew and Aramaic into Greek much would have been misinterpreted and lost in translation. It only goes more downhill from there.
I can open a bible and put my finger on any sentence and can come up with many possibilities regarding the meaning of the sentence I'm poking. If I again put my finger on any word in that sentence, then look up the word from which that word was translated, I can again see many new possibilities as to the meaning of what I'm poking.
If I can do this, you can too. Why lie to yourself?
It is no mystery.
There really is very much mystery added by translation and that's a good thing. If there weren't uncertainty, then we wouldn't need to call on the Holy Spirit in order to derive a truer understanding of what we're reading. Learning this practice is really the whole point of reading it.
Yes even if the translations are correct, words take different meanings in different times and become different depending on the culture and language.
The English language has obscured alot, not to mention Latin and romance languages etc
Its functionally not available the way you make it out.
The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
Exactly, now throw in how King James oversaw Richard Bancroft while he put together the KJV and you can easily see a whole bunch of ways that could go wrong
I'm saying there are thousands upon thousands of ancient Koine Greek manuscripts and they're all in agreement.
There's a reason they're referred to as the Textus Recptus (Received Text).
There's many translations but only 2 Bibles in the world today.
You've got the classical Greek texts preserved by the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) along with Codex Sinaiticus ("discovered" by Protestant Tischendorf in a Roman Catholic convent on Mt. Sinai in a wastepaper basket after he held an audience with the Pope months prior), and Codex Sinaiticus, along with Greek versions of the Old Testament.
The other Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek New Testament.
Koine Greek was the language of the streets. Classical Greek was the language of scholars. Now presuming one is the real Bible and the other isn't, would you assume a bunch of Jewish fishermen like Peter and James spoke slang or sounded like college professors?
Ok...I misunderstood your intentions...And I'm just used to downvotes for whatever I post so I apologize for assuming it was you...I just don't ever expect anyone to make jokes concerning the 'Bible'...Not that you can if you want to...
No worries. I've also noticed your threads are stalked by a serial downvoter who really has a grudge against you for some irrational reason, so I understand.
Damn purkiss I remember when you were praised here as a open minded person and someone to learn from. Now it seems you are being persecuted for it. Kinda wierd bud.
There are over 6000 copies of ancient manuscripts of the Bible in existence today.
The Bible we have today was written based on the manuscripts which were copies of the original texts that were confirmed by the exiting church.
The last book of the Bible, Revelation, was written by John around 90 AD. There were no new revelations given after that time. Rev 22:18 says this, "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"
In 2 Pet 1:3 it says, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,"
IF there is new revelation from God, then are verses above lies? Did he indeed give us "ALL things that pertain to life and godliness" or do we need more?
Revelations 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
Revelations 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Nowhere in those verses does it say anything about there being no new revelations. It warns MEN not to add to or take away from the prophecy. That means US, not God. God has given many new revelations since that time and continues to do so.
It helps to read from a version of the scriptures that has not had the wording changed into modern language in order to simplify the reading. This often leads to mistakes and misinterpretations of the original scriptures. You are at the mercy of the person who changed the wording from the original text. For example, in the scriptures above there is a huge difference in meaning between "anyone" vs "any man".
What about 2 Pet 1:3, has God given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness, or was He lying, and we needed more? If this new document was written 1500 years ago, that would be about 500 years after the book of Revelation, which was the final book. The Bible was cannonized (all books put together in one complete book) in 397 AD.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Pet 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [b]interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [c]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Look, I'm not a scriptural scholar. I'm not going to win any contests slinging scriptures back and forth, and I can't quote many from memory. But I do possess common sense, and the ability to think critically, as well as the ability to open the scriptures and read them. I also have the same ability that every other person on this earth has, and that is the ability to get down on my knees and pray for answers to my questions. And when God answers my questions, by whatever means he chooses, isn't that a form of revelation? Prayer is available to all of us.
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
I can't answer all of your questions, and neither can any other man or woman on this earth no matter how educated they may be, but there is someone who can.
This “exiting church” is I think the point of what is trying to be said about there being more to the Bible. Because we all know the “existing church” after John decided to edit, adjust, and remove entire books from both Paul and John’s known version of their transcribed Bible back in 90-ish AD.
The last or 2nd Council Nicaea was in 787 AD, and the was responsible for removing the Apocryphal books that had been perfectly accepted before. And they probably made the majority of the last linguistic edits, except for some done in more modern Bibles for younger audiences of course.
When the first comment made within minutes of a post is negative and seeks to make readers pay no attention to the post, I immediately suspect the commenter is being paid.
It’s amazing how people clamor over some “hidden” writings or secret “truths” instead of the clear truth that God has already given to them.
God is not trying to hide the Truth from you. It’s already been revealed; anything new or recently uncovered is not from God but from the author of confusion.
Jokes aside, It says its Matthew 11 and 12 but its a Syriac (Syrian?) translation. This isn't going to be a groundbreaking discovery affecting our understanding of God and the world we live in -- but biblical language scholars are going to geek out for this because its kinda cool to have a somewhat uncommon translation of the gospel.
People are so strange, how they can't wait to mock what they are suspicious of, even before all the facts are in.
It is generally known that possibly as many as 80 "books" were removed from the Bible. Including the one that contained info about Jesus' thoughts or words about reincarnation. The Church decided what humanity was going to be allowed to read about, or from, God. It is also commonly known that The Vatican houses thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, gospel chapters, books, you name it. And a state of the art computer lab for compiling and analyzing information. And probably spying/covert activities/trafficking. And, what is believed to be a portal of some sort down there, through which beings arrive and leave. Think what you wish. I put nothing past The Vatican, thought to be the anti-Christ Jesuit hierarchy on Earth. I think records of every single evil thing that ever happened on Earth is under The Vatican. That is one crusty scab that is over a real cesspool of deceit.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
Hebrews 9:27
Jesus' thoughts regarding reincarnation have already been made clear. The Eastern conception of reincarnation and karma has you working for salvation/enlightenment in opposition to the clear biblical teaching that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works.
Yet when older manuscripts are found like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or even questionable ones like the Vaticanus or Siniaticus, the differences are minor. The latter two in particular were discarded versions that deleted some verses and changed the wording in others. They did this enough to not be reliable for use in Bibles (in my opinion), but even so one could read those manuscripts and still get the gospel.
“There may be content in the Bible (or other book) that’s been systematically erased” is fundamentally an argument from silence. As a Christian I simply have faith that God has accurately preserved His Word in spite of man’s attempts to corrupt it, and so far the evidence is in favor of the Bible (specifically the Textus Receptus) being the fruit of that preservation.
The DSS have nothing to do with Christianity, Gnostic or otherwise. They were all written at least a century before Christ.
How on earth does my endorsement of the Textus Receptus indicate support of the RCC? They don’t use the TR; they use the Vulgate. A brief examination of my comment history will reveal that I am not a Catholic and do not agree with their theology.
I am forced to conclude that you are ignorant of anything concerning Christianity.
And what if CNN was broadcasting in Latin and ancient Greek only and started bombing the television stations flooding the airwaves with their broadcasts translated into English, German, French, Italian and other native tongues?
Would you think they didn't have something to hide?
Don't forget. The Bible itself talks of 1260 years of darkness which corresponds with the Roman Catholic Church taking over much of Europe and what is today referred to as the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was the attempt at a Great Reset but those pesky Protestants thought they'd spoil the plans of the elites and get behind the Reformation instead.
Who knew that sticking to Biblical principles was the secret to ending the feudal system? The emerging and thriving merchant and craftsmen created a middle class that never existed before Rome lost control.
I am fairly certain that many people around the world and within would say the same thing about the United States. Has it always been so? Or has the corruption crept in like a thief in the night to destroy a once noble structure? The Catholic Church is not one of my favorite organizations, however I do recognize that the corruption has increasingly crept into a lot of the organization over centuries. This does not mean that the Catholic Church does not have wholesome followers who are trying to live their lives in a Christian way. There are many servants within the Catholic religion that I respect and would defend, even though the organization itself has a significant amount of stain on its reputation.
You are precisely correct. Jesus did not argue in favor of the Church, but he did regard the temples as places of worship for his father. It is fairly obvious that Jesus did not then, nor does he now support corruption.it is apparent that the Catholic church has been subverted and is no longer an institution that supports the Word of God. My point is that even though the institution is corrupt, this does not mean all of the devout are corrupt. The power of the Catholic church has diminished tremendously. They no longer have the power and wealth that they have had in the past. Their influence in the world is far less and their corruption is being exposed. I believe that the vast majority of Catholics are not swayed in the recent rulings from the Papacy. They do not support abortion, pedophilia or this far-left quackery. I don't believe they can pied-piper their followers into damnation.
Dogma isn't the Vatican either. Your comparison is way off- Catholic Dogma is like the Constitution. By the way, it does not actually include things like celibacy being a requirement to be a priest and conduct mass, although they treat it as if it were. Old Catholic Church has married priests, for instance.
So yes, Vatican is an administration and the Biden group and handlers are the administration. Neither represents its people, both hate their constituents, eat babies, and worship Satan. There, I've said it. Happy? Meanwhile the country and the true church have been suffering for a long time under evil administrations, taking them further from their origins and blessed paths.
80 books removed from the Bible?
Councils in 392 and beyond came up with the definitive list of the books of the Bible for the first time.
The result: Basically the Septuagint (Old Testament, in Greek) and our modern New Testament.
The books included in the official NT list had to pass several criterion: they had to be written by the first generation of Christians, and had to be free of errors. Books that came later were excluded (eg Gospel of Thomas), and books with errors (eg Epistle of Barnabas).
Vatican library? It's interesting, but hasn't the Catholic bible always contained more 'books' than, say, the King James version? I remember a neighbor showing me a long time ago the difference between her Catholic bible and mine. What I recall most was that hers declared that you must be Catholic to have salvation. But then again, I guess each religion has the same belief system....theirs being the 'only' way.....which is why I quit belonging to any.
I had heard years ago that the Apocrypha was omitted by printers trying to save money, since it wasn't part of the canon. There are probably other reasons.
Also, the original KJV as first published spelled many words different from the current one. I think you can find a scan on Archive.
BTW, in those early printed Bibles, the printers tried to save type in their typesetting by using abbreviations. One of the most misunderstood ones was they way they abbreviated "the" and another word or two that started with "th." There was an old letter that resembled "y." They would shorten up thousands of words and save a lot of type, ink, and paper. But now people don't know that "ye olde" really means "the old."
Any organization that says that you can only reach salvation through "us" is, by definition, a false religion. Only through Jesus can you reach the Father. Anyone telling you differently is selling something. I also do not believe in organized religion. The collection of wealth and power always seems to attract the wrong kind of person. When you follow this person, you end up straying from the Word.
532ce? That’s 4th century… 400 years removed from Christ…It’s my impression that all of the NT was written before the end of the 1st century… during and not long after the lifetimes of those who knew him…
Then copies of those manuscripts and books were made (which strengthens the transmission of the true text). The OP would touch one of those copies farther down the road a few centuries.
1500 years ago... under layers of manuscript... probably a piece of scrap stationary they tried to erase and then they used it to strengthen the paper product used to write what was actually important on. But it's a great click bait article title trying to cast doubt on the book used by those Christians...
Very interesting post. I might add only this - As to the Bible, Josephus confirms all and he had 'no horses in the race' as he was not religious but simply a historian.
So what does it say? Is it historical narrative? Didactic? Apocalyptic? Occasional Epistle?
It will be great fun to analyze its contents once available. If its historical narrative, the gold standard are the 4 gospel documents + Acts, that were accepted by the early Church as canon, because among other reasons they self-attest with all the customary evidence of the authors being intimately familiar with the nuances of the regions and time period of which they wrote and described. The gnostic gospels by contrast, completely lack these features (all they seem to know about were generalized landmarks like Jerusalem and Galilee, which anyone in the broader region would have known about from a distance and later time).
We've been talking about discoveries like this for weeks at c/Christianity. This one has some value because the palimpsest (which is a manuscript, not a person as the article states) is dated to the 3rd century and we don't have other Peshitta going that far back:
The data is very breathless, but basically it's just further evidence of the Old Syriac translation of Matt. 11-12 (an area poorly attested so far), and ultimately it's one important puzzle piece more in favor of, well, you pick which translation you like, this one seems to me to favor KJV and NKJV. Among 25,000 pieces.
You would be amazed how many important and tenet changing pieces of information, not to mention changes in translation were left out of the "final cut" that The Church (and the resultant book) says is "complete and 100% true."
No one looks because tenets are core beliefs, all founded upon a cirular argument. Can't change core beliefs, that would be heresy. Heresy is a word that carried over from the original use by The Church all the way until today. Thus, beliefs are controlled. Evidence is ignored.
The Church still retains full control, despite (because of) the "reformations" which were themselves either initially acts of controlled opposition, or the resultant institutions were later taken over by The Church and made into it (there is evidence for both assessments and they are not mutually exclusive ideas).
This is the next veil in The Matrix. Seeing that all of today's religions are Controlled Opposition. Perhaps this evidence will encourage others to dig in, allowing for the possibility to challenge core beliefs, which is the most difficult endeavor we humans take in this Great Awakening.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession.
The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
This! Everyone is so quick to undermine the Bible itself by way of the secret agendas of Catholicism, but never look into how reliable the manuscripts and timelines were and WHY certain books were excluded. It’s a good thing that the books were curated. Should there not have been a standard for being included in the most important book in history? Nah! Chuck any old thing you found in the ground in there! Not defending Catholicism, I have issues there, but the early church is not the same as the Roman Catholic system, and certain books SHOULD have been excluded.
Yes, the Catholics and Muslims were both slaughtering Christians. The Greek Orthodox fled Constantinople and some made it as far as Russia.
They brought back their Koine Greek Bibles to Europe centuries later right around the time of the Reformation. It was Catholic priests such as Luther and Erasmus who learned how to read Greek and Latin that did much of the translation work.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence.
Your entire statement is the common mantra. It is told by every minister's teacher to every minister in Seminary, who then goes on to repeat it to the congregation, passed down from generation to generation. Evidence is offered and there is evidence that supports it.
What about all the evidence that doesn't support it?
When you really dig into the evidence this statement starts to fall apart. I suggest you do so. See what you find. Look with a critical eye. Don't assume it is true. Look for the discrepancies. Look for the parts that don't make sense, such as YHWH demanding child sacrfice e.g., or "God changing" with the "new convenant." God (AKA Source) can't change. It is the Source of all things, including the things we call "good" or "evil" which while in some cases are congruent across societies, in others change drastically, even to opposite poles.
YHWH (whether he is Source or not) has a chosen people. Who are those chosen people? I don't mean who are the people The Church says are the chosen people (those who believe that YHWH is Source). Who are they really? Really look into why YHWH demands blood sacrifices, and "changed." Maybe that's not exactly what happened. Maybe by looking at "alternative" translations (alternate to the ones you know) you can see that. Maybe by realizing that there are numerous names that got translated into "God" in "The Good Book" you can see that there is more to the story. Maybe by realizing that what is translated into English (or Latin, or even the "new Jewish language" that injected vowels) is not self-consistent nor is it consistent with other works (otherwise canon books that didn't make it into the final cut, or other historical documents/archeology).
It is especially interesting when you start digging into other Religions, or scholarship on the religion that existed before the Jewish religion became monotheistic and was made into the defacto religion of the Jews around 800 BC. The "Torah" (AKA The Law that guided society) didn't really take hold for several hundred years. It was written by the Jewish Priest Class and it was used to rule the land of Israel. God demanded sacrifices and the "tithe" (including the best cuts of meat from sacrifices, etc.) from the people but it was the Jewish Priest Class that really got those best cuts of meat, and money (and still do today). When you really dig in, you find that the Jewish Priest Class is the same exact people that rules the world today.
When you use the word "God" everyone assumes you mean Source. Yet all Religions actually talk about very different "Gods," even if they are monotheistic, and so does the Bible. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe there is more to the story upon further scholarship outside of those who profess the "Bible is 100% true and correct."
What about all the evidence that doesn't support it?
I was expecting to hear about "all" of this evidence to the contrary, but you presented none.
The reason why what I am saying is true isn't because some pastor repeated it, but because actual Biblical Critics seasoned in the field of Ancient Textual Transmission have shown it to be the case. And this not only from bible believing scholars. Secular scholars have concluded the same thing. Now, those secular scholars may not agree with what is said and taught within the bible, but they don't take issue with it's authenticity and historical authenticity.
The rest of your comment is just an emotional diatribe filled with Red Herrings.
I was expecting to hear about "all" of this evidence to the contrary, but you presented none.
What I was doing was giving you a place to begin, and asking critical questions that you took as "emotional diatribe filled with Red Herrings" (which is itself a Red Herring argument. They were actual critical questions that you didn't address, but rather dismissed as "emotional diatribe").
The following pieces of evidence are not offered as "the truth," but rather as a place to start. In order to investigate anything in earnest it is essential to distinguish between the evidence, the argument, and the rhetoric that is contained in a presentation. It is the evidence that is most important. The argument (logic) is useful. The rhetoric, which fills up a lot of these things, is a lot less relevant. Rhetoric is the "convincing words" outside of evidence and argument (laid over the top) that attempt to persuade you to agree with what someone believes. Thus I offer these pieces of work for the evidence and argument that are included within them. Nothing more.
"God" (really the people who wrote the Bible) states explicitly that his name is Jealous.
Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Don't worship "other gods" (an admittance there are other gods) because My name is Jealous. How can the Source of all things be so Jealousthat he proclaims that as his name? What is there to be "Jealous" of if you are Source? This, by the way, is a critical question, not "emotional diatribe."
Jesus said he was the Son of God. He said we are ALL Children of God. Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The idea of this "dual nature of God" (Father and Son, where Jesus was exclusively the "Son of God" and the rest of us are not) wasn't part of the Christian tenet until it was made into law at the Nicene Convention three centuries after Jesus. This first ecumenical council was formed by a self-proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God to unite the disparate religions of the Roman Empire (pagan, Christian, Egyptian, Jewish, etc.) and thus gain Rulership of a failing nation by setting up a God-Emporer system. The idea of the Trinity didn't become an official thing until it too was written into law in 383 AD at the second ecumenical conference.
Once you start really digging into the primary evidence supplied by other religions that were prominent in the region (and across the world, since it was far more connected than "official history" would like us to believe) you see where the Religion we call "Christianity" really came from. The idea of the Trinity was strictly a pagan concept. It was included to appease all the pagans, and create a unifying religion to rule all of Europe.
None of this addresses all the books (that list is not comprehensive) that were previously canon that were left out of the final cut. The "alternate" gospels are particularly revealing.
This is the tip of the iceberg on the evidence I have gathered. At some point I will write it up formally. I am too busy revealing the first veil. The second will have to wait.
The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
The page has been universally condemned by church leaders...
written off of stories that are so far removed from original fact
Almost ALL of the New Testament was codified before 70AD (the destruction of the Temple by the Romans).
That is roughly 40 years after Christ walked the earth. The book of Luke was written before that. 1 Corinthians contains a portion of text that dates to within 9 years of Christs death. I challenge ANYONE to find an ancient book from early antiquity that can compare to both the number of manuscripts the Bible possesses and the extremely short time gap in between our first copies and the original autographs (Original writing). There are none.
Homers Iliad? Written 500+ years after Homer lived. All of Aristotle and Plato's writings that you studied in College are taken from texts (copies) that post date the lives of those men by over 1000 years. Yet, no one doubts the words we read in those books are really Aristotle's words or Plato's words?? Why is that? ONLY when it comes to the Bible do we have this hyper skepticism regarding it's authenticity. Very interesting indeed.....
This is often a point I make as well. If we were to go by the "skeptic's" standards, we would have to claim that the entirety of ancient history was invented in the middle ages.
One of the issues with skepticism in regards to the Bible is that it delineates precise and clear laws for conduct in this world. This is offensive and distasteful to people who have so much pride that they will not accept any higher authority than what they "feel". The Bible has been scrutinized with a million microscopes. Every bit that can be verified or disputed via secular history has been analyzed and scrutinized. This has resulted in the Bible being verified in every possible way with corroborating evidence. The verifiable information does not blanket vindicate all the writings within the Bible, however in every challenge presented, the Bible has been batting a thousand. This makes Faith far less of a stretch than is commonly comprehended. For the challengers to this topic, I readily accept any factual evidence that can be provided that disproves any information provided within the Bible.
ONLY when it comes to the Bible do we have this hyper skepticism regarding it's authenticity.
Wat? This is website where most people are hyper skeptical about everything. I place almost no value on history from 50 years ago, but it's a big no-no to question history from 1993 years ago?
If trusting the historical accuracy of the Bible were the only way to Christ, I'd have never found him.
Yep, kind of like the Dead Sea scrolls, so many “hidden books” were found but really they were gnostic texts, stories, fictional tales or popular books at the time. Just because it’s old and tries to sound biblical doesn’t mean it’s authoritative/inspired scripture.
The discovery of the DSS also corroborated the meticulous nature with which the Scribes penned these copies down through the ages.
A great example of this is the amazing accuracy between the scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran (which was discovered in its entirety) and our - at the time - most current copy. A 1000 yr gap. We’re talking letters. That’s right, letters. It’s virtually letter for letter the…same.
Clearly this is a testament to the way God has preserved His Word down through the centuries, protecting it from extinction and guarding it against significant error.
Yes, got those who say the Bible has been mishandled or misinterpreted through the years don’t know what they’re talking about. We have more literary proof for biblical texts than we do the works of Plato and Aristotle, yet no one questions those. Now I will say translating to English can be difficult and have some grammatical errors or contextual errors. Some bibles use a paraphrase vs an actual interpretation. Some of the biblical texts were written in various forms of poetic style, so the different translations seem to fall on a spectrum of word for word vs keeping the spirit of the poetic imagery if that makes sense.
What’s REALLY interesting about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts.
The vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing discovery in that the scrolls were in excellent condition and had remained hidden for so long (over 2000 years!).
1500 years ago is not so biblically relevant I guess, but at the same time any discoveries is actually really intriguing because it's already so rare that we get to see so far back in time in any fashion.
I'm starting to feel like these days are biblically relevant. Like are people in the furture going to read some of the phrases we were inspired by God to utter?
I think it says Trump won...
Even they knew it. It’s been written in the scrolls for centuries
There were also texts found stating PedoSnifferJoe rigged it.
Also, Han shot first.
And this is a perfect example of why I’ve said on many occasions, today’s western/European Bibles are transcribed per the church’s control, namely the prior Council’s of Nicaea, that edited books and removed certain books from the Bible (the Apocryphal Books). Just goes to show way back then, if a part didn’t fit a simple human’s idea, importance, clear lingustic translation, or a even narratives, it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over. And done by those that had the power over the rest of the world learning all the word og God, to do so, namely the Vatican.
The only way to make this statement, and for it to be true, is to know what the original writings said in order to know that "they've been changed." Thus becoming a self defeating statement.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession. The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
You can take that to the bank (or maybe a credit union :P )
Well, get your check book out haha! Because the Ethiopian Bible was not subject to the Council’s of Nicaea, or the Vatican ever. Since the time the Queen of Sheba left Jerusalem, that country has had its own version of the Bible which is supposed to be more complete. The Ethiopian Bible of course still includes the Apocryphal books and again none of the “edits” western/European Bibles have had since then.
Strange that’s this is public knowledge in Africa, but not so much outside that continent due to Western Scholar’s historical superiority complexes haha.
Haha no of course it’s not a ticket nor am I saying that at all. I’m just presenting the fact that the Vatican has edited and “removed” things from the original Biblical format along with the Councils of Nicaea, beyond the original scriptures, even beyond what Constantine first set out. As we’ve learned even more from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the modern version of the NIV and/or King James Bibles are not “in whole” to what was originally written.
Just to ramble for a minute if I may. It would seem to me that there are quite a few fail safes God specifically created for us to find, that shows us his word is verifiable and true to its original meaning, if your willing to seek it out. It was not a random coincidence, in my opinion, that those scrolls were found when they were found, timing is everything with God. It is even more interesting that it ends this exact debate just like that.
A brief look into some of Gods other fail safes brings us to the original Hebrew language, it combined three layers to create a unified message of revelation. It was common meaning, pictographic and numeric. Each layer contains either confirmation of the primary or conventional meaning or in many cases it shines a light on a deeper revelation God wants repeated or magnified.
And to add another personal opinion, the Bible compiled into a common language that is able to be easily carried, transported and disseminated, and which could also be a handheld companion and common household staple has done more to damage tyrants and systems of control than any other idea or philosophy man has created. If evil men conspired to twist the Bible into a condensed version of 66 books, and hoped it would be to their benefit, it would seem that they failed miserably, because in reality it has only brought revolt and revolution with an understanding that Gods authority is supreme and it outweighs the pompous and arrogant titles and self perceived authority of mere men.
You dont really give the full picture. The council didn't already have a complete bible and decided what needs to be removed...they were examining many letters and stories claiming to be inspired and determining their history, context, and relationship to other scripture etc. Some books were not placed in the Bible because they were known attempts to lead Christians astray (many of the so called “lost books”) and others while beneficial to read, were determined not be divinely inspired by God (apocryphal books). I think of the apocryphal books as I would a book by a very knowledgeable theologian today: able to provide insight, perspective and encouragement to your faith, but not God’s divinely inspired writings.
Ethiopian Orthodox has a different 10 commandments than Catholic / Protestant. How can this be when they all have the same Bible (Exodus)? Maybe it's not the same. I don't see chapter headings and verse numbers in the picture above. That's something that translators have added to influence readers toward their own interpretation.
If the translators' opinions were taken away, the Bible books would be very different-- they would be original text. And it would have a big impact. Readers might see "The 10 Commandments" in Exodus 34:28 written on stone tablets and think those were it, instead of Exodus 20 where we've been taught.
The Ethiopian Orthodox share the same 10 commandments the Protestants do...
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS አስርቱ ተእዛዛት
(ኦሪት ዘፃአት 20:2-17)
https://nybeaataeotc.org/ten-commandments
It's the Catholics who removed the 2nd commandment against graven images and split the 10th commandment into two parts to obfuscate that fact.
The Catholic bible contains 73 books in the Old Testament including the cannon books while the Protestant Bible contains 66 books in the Old Testament.
What is a Catholic Bible?
The Catholic Bible came into existence and practiced with the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the 1st century.
It contains the teachings, literature, wisdom, and story of Jesus Christ who lived in the province of Judea in the Roma Empire.
It contains 73 books in the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes ‘Apocrypha’ the Greek version. The New Testament contains 27 books.
During the time of Jesus Christ, both the Hebrews and the Septuagint were used in the scriptures and this makes the Catholic Bible contain both scriptures.
It is published in accordance with the catholic canon law. It is officially referred to as ‘The Vulgate’. The vulgate is now officially in Latin language and used all over the world.
The catholic bible remained unchanged even after the reformation. The catholic bible contains books such as Baruch, Judith, Sirach, stories of Susanna, Tobit, Stories of Bel and Dragon which are not found in the bible used by protestants.
https://coredifferences.com/difference-between-catholic-bible-and-protestant-bible/
Here’s the thing though… the apocrypha contains historical inaccuracies and fallacies. There’s a reason it’s excluded from Protestant bibles. It was included to further the Catholic narrative - such as almsgiving, prayer for the dead, and others.
If you actually look at the scriptures referenced by Josephus, or Jesus himself, the 66 are the only true ones the Jews would’ve had access to in 1st century AD.
The Catholic bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament- 73 books total. You may want to edit your post. BTW your post was very good. Thank you
No problem. I have a Catholic Bible. The St Joseph's Edition of The New American Bible.
I just counted the Old Testament books and the New Testament books in there-
And YOU ARE CORRECT- The number of Old Testament books are 47. And 27 in the New Testament.
It is the article I linked to that is incorrect. I have no idea where they got their information. (Perhaps some of the books from the Apocrypha were omitted)
I do have the following Aprocrypha books included: Tobit, Judith, Sirach, and Baruch. But I do not have the stories of Bel, Dragon nor of Suzanna that I know of.
I should have double checked before posting.
The King James Bible of 1611 contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible and even more in addition to those.
The books excluded from the Jewish canon by the Jews themselves were labeled as the Apocrypha, but they were still included in the published King James Bible. What the Catholics were upset about the label.
Books of the Apocrypha (14 in total - 15 if you include the Additions to Esther)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit (in Catholic bible but sometimes called Tobias)
Judith (in Catholic bible)
Additions to Esther (in Catholic bible but included at end of Esther as footnotes)
Wisdom of Solomon (in Catholic bible)
Ecclesiasticus (in Catholic bible)
Baruch (in Catholic bible)
Letter of Jeremiah (in Catholic bible but called Sirach)
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees (in Catholic bible)
2 Maccabees (in Catholic bible)
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books-List/1611-Apocrypha-Books-List.php
So 1 and 2 Esdras, Prayer of Azariah, Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Prayer of Manasseh were additional books in the Protestant Bibles.
Yes, it's true those books were removed by some publishers, but it's still possible to buy a King James Bible with Apocrypha included.
Ironically, there's even a Catholic King James version -
http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/
You seem like you would know the answer to this, “why doesn’t the Catholic faith promote the studying of the Bible?”.
It’s not like they’re telling their parishioners not to read it, but how many homilies have you heard a priest give where they’re promoting it? I can’t think of once and my ex wife is a devout Catholic and I went to a private Catholic school..
I have no idea why they don't. I think that is changing now, though. There are Catholic Churches that hold Bible studies during the week.
My born and raised RC parents never read a bible (nor did they even own one) I asked when I bought my own as an adult. I actually left the church at one time and came back to it after much thought. I considered becoming Baptist. I realized it is more about my relationship with God than where I went to church. Church is man-made and the main reason to go is to be with like minded individuals where I can adminster to them and they to me. I really like my small rural Catholic Church here in the bible belt. I came back to the Catholic faith as it is familiar to me. I am what you might consider a Born Again Catholic, though.
Having been Catholic or raised you should know the Catholic Church has bible readings at every Mass. And our priest always discusses the three readings in his homily.
My Catholic church has a bible study every Monday but it only covers the weekly gospel readings. My sister attends one at her Catholic Church that meets weekly but they cover much more than my own Church does. She's been attending hers for years now.
I currently attend a women's bible study in my neighborhood every Thursday. We are reading the Old Testament. The woman teaching it is very good. She is Protestant. She is writing her own bible study book that will be low cost for small groups outside of churches that might wish to have a study guide. She claims the guides for churches are expensive. Anyway we are helping form the questions for the study and others are helping her edit the manuscript.
In the past, I attended a bible study here in my community with a man who once was Catholic who become a Baptist. He did a great job teaching it I miss his interpretations as he did such a great job. He moved away and has since met His Maker. We had other members of other faiths who attended including two Southern Babtists who became Roman Catholic.
I get other takes on the bible from those there who are Protestant. I know many of them might not take kindly to my faith, though. -
It’s hard for me to appreciate a religion that has so much rot from within. I struggle with knowing that so many Catholics for so long have known about the atrocities that have taken place for decades within the church. Yet,, I can’t remember a single mass movement from within to force change within the church and that tells me the problem is much deeper than with just the leadership of the church.
I don’t believe one single Christian religion is the only way to God and since that is true to me I see no current value in what remains of the Catholic Church. Yes,,, there are good ppl that are still apart of that church, but I believe they are holding on to the idea that the Catholic Church is the only true path to God, if not that,, then why would anyone stay.?.
Every religion has rot in it bc it is man-made and man is full of sin. Didn't we just see the Dali Llama ask a young boy to kiss his tongue? The Catholic Church is NOT the only church with corruption in it.
There is no way any religion has stayed chaste they are all tainted.
The Catholic Church I am currently a member in is very small. I love that I know almost everyone there. It also has a very active Knights of Columbus group that has won awards for their service to the community given the size of my church almost every male is a Knight. We started a women's group a couple of years ago and we are busy with service to our community and our church. I also enjoy singing in my church choir. There are many benefits to joining the RIGHT church. You just have to find one you fit in with. For me it took moving out of NY State from a very progressive Catholic Church (which is why I left the church) to the bible belt of the south where we actually have Christmas (not Holiday) Parades and people openly pray.
The Vatican is a whole nuther story.
You have hit upon the mark with the statement about rot within all structured religions. The issue at hand is not the particular denomination or religion, it is the collection of power and wealth. It is truly a special human being that can accept the role of leadership and yet remain humble and honest. Power corrupts human beings, with some exceptions. The further issue comes with these positions of authority attract a certain kind of person that desires power. In the end, this ultimately causes corruption to invade even the most wholesome structures. Mankind is not fit to lead each other, it is why we must follow God's rule. In all things, look to him for guidance. Be wary of placing your faith in the hands of another, it is our most precious gift and it belongs only to God.
I understand you love your small rural church but it is wholly a part of the Catholic Church and to that existent the Vatican.
Everything that is given to you in mass is passed down from the Vatican and if the hand that feeds is tainted then everything it touches is tainted🤷🏻♂️
Yes,,, every religion has it’s bad actors, but not every religion is systematically corrupted. I can say with 100% certainty that if I found out my church and it’s leaders had been doing what the Catholic Church had been doing I would leave. The difference for me is I don’t believe that has an effect on how God views me, loves me or my salvation.
Sheep leave when the shepherd is struck down, and Catholics are still the ones the evil fears the most, this the continued dedicated attacks against the priests abd churches. Note the recent attempt to deny communion and last rites to injured soldiers at Walter Reed.
The way I see it is as a follower of Christ you have two choices, flip over the temple tables or leave. Anything other than that makes you complicit.
That's weird, not sure where you've gone, but every single Catholic parish I've ever seen (all over the world) all my life has Bible studies, daily mass uses different verses from scripture and in school the kids are taught to read the Bible.
St. Thomas Aquinas Dallas Tx and multiple others within East Texas, private school was in East Texas and it was many years ago that I attended.
Yes, we had Bible verses to memorize, but we were never encouraged to read outside of what was being laid out for us at that moment. We were never encouraged to go directly to God with anything, there was always a flawed human put in between me and my creator. The idea of developing an intimate personal relationship with God is not part of Catholic dogma and it is a very flawed aspect of that religion.
Interesting, I had incredibly different experiences. In fact if they were to have taught the experiences of the saints more, it would have been easier for many to emulate examples of very successful personal relationships with Christ. The current church, infiltrated as it is, hides the writings of the saints that provide better homilies than most of the ordinary priests we'll ever hear. The current church decided not to fight injustice, not to fight for the unborn, but to fight anything at all. It funded into the weird modern protestant hiding of God from all daily life.
If you were to seek out stories of the mystics, then find their own writings, you'll see actual love letters, moments of grace, intimacy with the Holy Spirit and revelations of all sorts. Bilocation, stigmata and other miracles don't happen in isolation, they are accompanied by visions, messages, instructions. Were you ever taught the source of the Rosary, for example? Perhaps my background involved more Hispanic churches, more conservative and Marian, and South America and Europe maybe have more of a hold on old school. Perhaps America doesn't have as many saints to relate to and doesn't want to study those from other countries? Whatever the case, clearly we have many hats to address. The content is out there and if the people who accepted the jobs of shepherd aren't fulfilling their vocation fully, well, we the laymen will have to pick up the slack.
They actually forbade it in the past. That's why it was in Latin, and English translations were forbidden. A number of people died to get us the Bible in English. They wanted to be the sole holders of information. That way, they could tell us lies, and we wouldn't know better. The Sabbath is on Saturday, always. But the Pope said we should skip that commandment and have church on Sunday, the "Lord's day," because that was when the Resurrection occurred. They also lied about "Good Friday" to cause people to have a reason to doubt Jesus. Jesus said that proof of being the Messiah was that he would remain in the earth three days and three nights, just as Jonah remained in the whale (they called ever humongous fish a whale) for three days and three nights. Jesus had to be crucified on Wednesday to fulfill this condition. Good Friday only allowed a day and a half.
They want 100% control.
I’ve never looked into the “Good Friday” situation, but I will now.
That said, you are absolutely correct about the control aspect of the Catholic Church.
As per the Sabbath I was taught it was St Paul who started services on Sundays for the Gentiles to avoid confusion of services with the Jews on the Sabbath.
The Catholics wanted the whole thing confused. I hear tons of people in church refer to Sunday as "this Sabbath day." They're old, so I just keep quiet.
We could meet on Sunday, but we should never refer to it as the Sabbath. If we are to follow the Ten Commandments, then we should observe the Sabbath and not work on Saturday. Some say the confusion led some to say let's just take both days off from work. Thus the weekend. :)
So you don't think it has anything to do with separating Christians from Jews... Interesting
Paul became the voice to the gentiles and proponent of releasing the requirement for circumcision. Thank God, lol
Not by current protestants. They were in the KJV version at first.
Kind of similar to block-chain. 🙏
ooooo I like that analogy.
Not true the translations alone are even questionable.
It is true. And the translations are not questionable. Some are thought for thought. Some are word for word. Just depends on what your looking for.
When they translated from ancient hebrew and Aramaic into Greek much would have been misinterpreted and lost in translation. It only goes more downhill from there.
This is just patently false. We know how to translate from one language to another. It is no mystery.
This is just patently false.
I can open a bible and put my finger on any sentence and can come up with many possibilities regarding the meaning of the sentence I'm poking. If I again put my finger on any word in that sentence, then look up the word from which that word was translated, I can again see many new possibilities as to the meaning of what I'm poking.
If I can do this, you can too. Why lie to yourself?
There really is very much mystery added by translation and that's a good thing. If there weren't uncertainty, then we wouldn't need to call on the Holy Spirit in order to derive a truer understanding of what we're reading. Learning this practice is really the whole point of reading it.
Yes even if the translations are correct, words take different meanings in different times and become different depending on the culture and language. The English language has obscured alot, not to mention Latin and romance languages etc
Its functionally not available the way you make it out. The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
...and it wasn't considered authoritative scripture by the early Christian community (the time of the Apostles).
What was the substance of the arguments for those advocating inclusion with canon?
Mainly, written by an Apostle (eyewitness of the risen Christ).
Mainly because Jesus kills a boy out of spite.
Splinters and eyes. You first.
Who actually knows How Much has been hidden from Humanity over the Centuries...
In my research, damn near everything.
Dont Doubt it for a minute...👍
Am interesting interview highlighting what you said between Vatican translator and Graham Hancock
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0cZXY70pbo&t=5s
Yes. This is a good video discussion on “wording, editing, meaning” of certain things in the Bible.
Exactly, now throw in how King James oversaw Richard Bancroft while he put together the KJV and you can easily see a whole bunch of ways that could go wrong
And if you learn Koine Greek and Hebrew and are able to access the same manuscripts the King James Version translators used, you'll see it went right.
Are you saying that the translations and use of context aren’t dispute ?
I'm saying there are thousands upon thousands of ancient Koine Greek manuscripts and they're all in agreement.
There's a reason they're referred to as the Textus Recptus (Received Text).
There's many translations but only 2 Bibles in the world today.
You've got the classical Greek texts preserved by the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) along with Codex Sinaiticus ("discovered" by Protestant Tischendorf in a Roman Catholic convent on Mt. Sinai in a wastepaper basket after he held an audience with the Pope months prior), and Codex Sinaiticus, along with Greek versions of the Old Testament.
The other Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek New Testament.
Koine Greek was the language of the streets. Classical Greek was the language of scholars. Now presuming one is the real Bible and the other isn't, would you assume a bunch of Jewish fishermen like Peter and James spoke slang or sounded like college professors?
100%. Bible is the word of God, so far as it is translated and transcribed correctly.
I would suggest bowing to God only but ok.
I do not deny christ have much love an admiration.
FYI this isn't a new chapter of the Bible. It's just an old translation of Matthew.
Yeah, we can toss this chapter.
That's pretty dismissive for someone who hasn't read this hidden bible chapter...How do you know what's contained in this??... I would love to know...
edit; Yeah, just downvote instead of engaging...🙄
Jokes are always funnier when you have to explain them: https://www.scientology.org/what-is-dianetics/basic-principles-of-scientology/dianetics-understanding-the-mind.html
Edit: I'll give you an upvote to prove it's not me downvoting you for having an opinion.
Edit 2: I made the above edit before you noticed the downvote because I'm a smartass with principles.
Ok...I misunderstood your intentions...And I'm just used to downvotes for whatever I post so I apologize for assuming it was you...I just don't ever expect anyone to make jokes concerning the 'Bible'...Not that you can if you want to...
No worries. I've also noticed your threads are stalked by a serial downvoter who really has a grudge against you for some irrational reason, so I understand.
All good fren...👍
Damn purkiss I remember when you were praised here as a open minded person and someone to learn from. Now it seems you are being persecuted for it. Kinda wierd bud.
What can I say?... I know I haven't changed so the problem would be theirs I think...😉😎
Truth
There are over 6000 copies of ancient manuscripts of the Bible in existence today. The Bible we have today was written based on the manuscripts which were copies of the original texts that were confirmed by the exiting church.
The last book of the Bible, Revelation, was written by John around 90 AD. There were no new revelations given after that time. Rev 22:18 says this, "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"
In 2 Pet 1:3 it says, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,"
IF there is new revelation from God, then are verses above lies? Did he indeed give us "ALL things that pertain to life and godliness" or do we need more?
Revelations 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
Revelations 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Nowhere in those verses does it say anything about there being no new revelations. It warns MEN not to add to or take away from the prophecy. That means US, not God. God has given many new revelations since that time and continues to do so.
It helps to read from a version of the scriptures that has not had the wording changed into modern language in order to simplify the reading. This often leads to mistakes and misinterpretations of the original scriptures. You are at the mercy of the person who changed the wording from the original text. For example, in the scriptures above there is a huge difference in meaning between "anyone" vs "any man".
What about 2 Pet 1:3, has God given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness, or was He lying, and we needed more? If this new document was written 1500 years ago, that would be about 500 years after the book of Revelation, which was the final book. The Bible was cannonized (all books put together in one complete book) in 397 AD.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Pet 1:20-21 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [b]interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [c]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
God has given us His word, and it is complete.
Look, I'm not a scriptural scholar. I'm not going to win any contests slinging scriptures back and forth, and I can't quote many from memory. But I do possess common sense, and the ability to think critically, as well as the ability to open the scriptures and read them. I also have the same ability that every other person on this earth has, and that is the ability to get down on my knees and pray for answers to my questions. And when God answers my questions, by whatever means he chooses, isn't that a form of revelation? Prayer is available to all of us.
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
I can't answer all of your questions, and neither can any other man or woman on this earth no matter how educated they may be, but there is someone who can.
And many words and sentences have their meanings altered by shaded translations, e.g. murder versus kill...
This “exiting church” is I think the point of what is trying to be said about there being more to the Bible. Because we all know the “existing church” after John decided to edit, adjust, and remove entire books from both Paul and John’s known version of their transcribed Bible back in 90-ish AD.
The last or 2nd Council Nicaea was in 787 AD, and the was responsible for removing the Apocryphal books that had been perfectly accepted before. And they probably made the majority of the last linguistic edits, except for some done in more modern Bibles for younger audiences of course.
When the first comment made within minutes of a post is negative and seeks to make readers pay no attention to the post, I immediately suspect the commenter is being paid.
Don't I wish!
I tend to agree with that...normally...
LOL. I mean Christ gave the disciples super powers. Walk around a pole enough times and you will get them too!
What about the the chapter about flat earth? Keep?
It’s amazing how people clamor over some “hidden” writings or secret “truths” instead of the clear truth that God has already given to them.
God is not trying to hide the Truth from you. It’s already been revealed; anything new or recently uncovered is not from God but from the author of confusion.
I am late to this party but happy to see you did a good job promoting the truth about biblical manuscripts. Thank you
New thing bad, old thing good.
throws poop at heretic
Jokes aside, It says its Matthew 11 and 12 but its a Syriac (Syrian?) translation. This isn't going to be a groundbreaking discovery affecting our understanding of God and the world we live in -- but biblical language scholars are going to geek out for this because its kinda cool to have a somewhat uncommon translation of the gospel.
Whelp, safe to say the "ThE bIbLe HaS bEEn cHaNgEd!" fanatics will latch on to this and never let go.
<eyeroll>
People have been trying SO hard to undermine the Bible over the past 2000 years
The Bible is the word of God so far as it has been translated/transcribed correctly. Luciferians have been striving for millennia to modify it.
Understood. But the group to which I refer doesn't care. This will be pRoOf to them the Entire Biblical text should be thrown out.
People are so strange, how they can't wait to mock what they are suspicious of, even before all the facts are in. It is generally known that possibly as many as 80 "books" were removed from the Bible. Including the one that contained info about Jesus' thoughts or words about reincarnation. The Church decided what humanity was going to be allowed to read about, or from, God. It is also commonly known that The Vatican houses thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, gospel chapters, books, you name it. And a state of the art computer lab for compiling and analyzing information. And probably spying/covert activities/trafficking. And, what is believed to be a portal of some sort down there, through which beings arrive and leave. Think what you wish. I put nothing past The Vatican, thought to be the anti-Christ Jesuit hierarchy on Earth. I think records of every single evil thing that ever happened on Earth is under The Vatican. That is one crusty scab that is over a real cesspool of deceit.
Jesus' thoughts regarding reincarnation have already been made clear. The Eastern conception of reincarnation and karma has you working for salvation/enlightenment in opposition to the clear biblical teaching that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works.
God preserved His Word outside of the Vatican. Trace the lineage of biblical manuscripts and you will find many that were never touched by Rome.
Yet when older manuscripts are found like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or even questionable ones like the Vaticanus or Siniaticus, the differences are minor. The latter two in particular were discarded versions that deleted some verses and changed the wording in others. They did this enough to not be reliable for use in Bibles (in my opinion), but even so one could read those manuscripts and still get the gospel.
“There may be content in the Bible (or other book) that’s been systematically erased” is fundamentally an argument from silence. As a Christian I simply have faith that God has accurately preserved His Word in spite of man’s attempts to corrupt it, and so far the evidence is in favor of the Bible (specifically the Textus Receptus) being the fruit of that preservation.
The DSS have nothing to do with Christianity, Gnostic or otherwise. They were all written at least a century before Christ.
How on earth does my endorsement of the Textus Receptus indicate support of the RCC? They don’t use the TR; they use the Vulgate. A brief examination of my comment history will reveal that I am not a Catholic and do not agree with their theology.
I am forced to conclude that you are ignorant of anything concerning Christianity.
And what if CNN was broadcasting in Latin and ancient Greek only and started bombing the television stations flooding the airwaves with their broadcasts translated into English, German, French, Italian and other native tongues?
Would you think they didn't have something to hide?
Don't forget. The Bible itself talks of 1260 years of darkness which corresponds with the Roman Catholic Church taking over much of Europe and what is today referred to as the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was the attempt at a Great Reset but those pesky Protestants thought they'd spoil the plans of the elites and get behind the Reformation instead.
Who knew that sticking to Biblical principles was the secret to ending the feudal system? The emerging and thriving merchant and craftsmen created a middle class that never existed before Rome lost control.
The printing press helped make the Reformation possible, just as the Internet is playing a role in awakening the hearts and minds of people today.
The Roman Catholic Church hid everything behind Latin. The serfs were not even allowed to hear the Word of God. This is why Europe was in darkness.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and in Greek, not Latin.
I am fairly certain that many people around the world and within would say the same thing about the United States. Has it always been so? Or has the corruption crept in like a thief in the night to destroy a once noble structure? The Catholic Church is not one of my favorite organizations, however I do recognize that the corruption has increasingly crept into a lot of the organization over centuries. This does not mean that the Catholic Church does not have wholesome followers who are trying to live their lives in a Christian way. There are many servants within the Catholic religion that I respect and would defend, even though the organization itself has a significant amount of stain on its reputation.
You are precisely correct. Jesus did not argue in favor of the Church, but he did regard the temples as places of worship for his father. It is fairly obvious that Jesus did not then, nor does he now support corruption.it is apparent that the Catholic church has been subverted and is no longer an institution that supports the Word of God. My point is that even though the institution is corrupt, this does not mean all of the devout are corrupt. The power of the Catholic church has diminished tremendously. They no longer have the power and wealth that they have had in the past. Their influence in the world is far less and their corruption is being exposed. I believe that the vast majority of Catholics are not swayed in the recent rulings from the Papacy. They do not support abortion, pedophilia or this far-left quackery. I don't believe they can pied-piper their followers into damnation.
The Vatican is not the church any more than the White House is the USA.
Dogma isn't the Vatican either. Your comparison is way off- Catholic Dogma is like the Constitution. By the way, it does not actually include things like celibacy being a requirement to be a priest and conduct mass, although they treat it as if it were. Old Catholic Church has married priests, for instance.
So yes, Vatican is an administration and the Biden group and handlers are the administration. Neither represents its people, both hate their constituents, eat babies, and worship Satan. There, I've said it. Happy? Meanwhile the country and the true church have been suffering for a long time under evil administrations, taking them further from their origins and blessed paths.
80 books removed from the Bible?
Councils in 392 and beyond came up with the definitive list of the books of the Bible for the first time.
The result: Basically the Septuagint (Old Testament, in Greek) and our modern New Testament.
The books included in the official NT list had to pass several criterion: they had to be written by the first generation of Christians, and had to be free of errors. Books that came later were excluded (eg Gospel of Thomas), and books with errors (eg Epistle of Barnabas).
👌👌👌👌
Vatican library? It's interesting, but hasn't the Catholic bible always contained more 'books' than, say, the King James version? I remember a neighbor showing me a long time ago the difference between her Catholic bible and mine. What I recall most was that hers declared that you must be Catholic to have salvation. But then again, I guess each religion has the same belief system....theirs being the 'only' way.....which is why I quit belonging to any.
Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha. Protestant Bible does not.
u/#Wrong
The King James version printed in 1611 contained the Apocrypha along with additional books.
I posted more info in this thread - https://greatawakening.win/p/16amw491hE/x/c/4TsaIWYXaP3
It used to centuries ago. You can still buy the Apocrypha as a separate book today.
I didn't know the kjv had been changed that much over time. It's got pretty poetry though
I had heard years ago that the Apocrypha was omitted by printers trying to save money, since it wasn't part of the canon. There are probably other reasons.
Also, the original KJV as first published spelled many words different from the current one. I think you can find a scan on Archive.
BTW, in those early printed Bibles, the printers tried to save type in their typesetting by using abbreviations. One of the most misunderstood ones was they way they abbreviated "the" and another word or two that started with "th." There was an old letter that resembled "y." They would shorten up thousands of words and save a lot of type, ink, and paper. But now people don't know that "ye olde" really means "the old."
No, the Catholic bible doesn't say you must be Catholic to be saved. Maybe a commentator wrote an opinion along those lines.
Any organization that says that you can only reach salvation through "us" is, by definition, a false religion. Only through Jesus can you reach the Father. Anyone telling you differently is selling something. I also do not believe in organized religion. The collection of wealth and power always seems to attract the wrong kind of person. When you follow this person, you end up straying from the Word.
division and slides incoming.....
My what large eyes you have.
I see all. kek
532ce? That’s 4th century… 400 years removed from Christ…It’s my impression that all of the NT was written before the end of the 1st century… during and not long after the lifetimes of those who knew him…
6th.... 0-99(1st) 100-199(2nd) 200-299(3rd) etc
6th cent. Right! Thanks a Pede- I always get that mixed up…
o7
You are correct.
Then copies of those manuscripts and books were made (which strengthens the transmission of the true text). The OP would touch one of those copies farther down the road a few centuries.
If YHWH wanted us to have it, he would have already done so. Do not underestimate Gods ability to manifest his will in any way!
If it’s from the Vatican… I’m not so sure it’s authentic. Lol.
1500 years ago... under layers of manuscript... probably a piece of scrap stationary they tried to erase and then they used it to strengthen the paper product used to write what was actually important on. But it's a great click bait article title trying to cast doubt on the book used by those Christians...
Paper was very expensive . That seems most logical
Recycling was critical because of the effort and cost of paper. It is no big "revelation" 😉, that a manuscript was "erased" and reused.
Very interesting post. I might add only this - As to the Bible, Josephus confirms all and he had 'no horses in the race' as he was not religious but simply a historian.
Link to article... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11961621/Hidden-Bible-chapter-written-1-500-years-ago-using-UV-light.html
So what does it say
"Epstein didn't kill himself" It's a book of common sense
Were they able to read it? What else did they know about it?
Did the printer run out of toner again?
What is the connection to "Q" from this post? I'm not seeing it
So what does it say? Is it historical narrative? Didactic? Apocalyptic? Occasional Epistle?
It will be great fun to analyze its contents once available. If its historical narrative, the gold standard are the 4 gospel documents + Acts, that were accepted by the early Church as canon, because among other reasons they self-attest with all the customary evidence of the authors being intimately familiar with the nuances of the regions and time period of which they wrote and described. The gnostic gospels by contrast, completely lack these features (all they seem to know about were generalized landmarks like Jerusalem and Galilee, which anyone in the broader region would have known about from a distance and later time).
So I'm curious whats in this "hidden" chapter?
See the link below, at the bottom of the page.
That verse referred solely to the book of Revelation. It was written as a separate book and not combined with the others until later.
Too bad that you have to remain wrong.
So, who was it written by, and what did it say?
That sounds biblical
OP link echoed: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11961621/Hidden-Bible-chapter-written-1-500-years-ago-using-UV-light.html
We've been talking about discoveries like this for weeks at c/Christianity. This one has some value because the palimpsest (which is a manuscript, not a person as the article states) is dated to the 3rd century and we don't have other Peshitta going that far back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syriac_New_Testament_manuscripts
The data is very breathless, but basically it's just further evidence of the Old Syriac translation of Matt. 11-12 (an area poorly attested so far), and ultimately it's one important puzzle piece more in favor of, well, you pick which translation you like, this one seems to me to favor KJV and NKJV. Among 25,000 pieces.
You would be amazed how many important and tenet changing pieces of information, not to mention changes in translation were left out of the "final cut" that The Church (and the resultant book) says is "complete and 100% true."
No one looks because tenets are core beliefs, all founded upon a cirular argument. Can't change core beliefs, that would be heresy. Heresy is a word that carried over from the original use by The Church all the way until today. Thus, beliefs are controlled. Evidence is ignored.
The Church still retains full control, despite (because of) the "reformations" which were themselves either initially acts of controlled opposition, or the resultant institutions were later taken over by The Church and made into it (there is evidence for both assessments and they are not mutually exclusive ideas).
This is the next veil in The Matrix. Seeing that all of today's religions are Controlled Opposition. Perhaps this evidence will encourage others to dig in, allowing for the possibility to challenge core beliefs, which is the most difficult endeavor we humans take in this Great Awakening.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession.
The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
This! Everyone is so quick to undermine the Bible itself by way of the secret agendas of Catholicism, but never look into how reliable the manuscripts and timelines were and WHY certain books were excluded. It’s a good thing that the books were curated. Should there not have been a standard for being included in the most important book in history? Nah! Chuck any old thing you found in the ground in there! Not defending Catholicism, I have issues there, but the early church is not the same as the Roman Catholic system, and certain books SHOULD have been excluded.
Yes, the Catholics and Muslims were both slaughtering Christians. The Greek Orthodox fled Constantinople and some made it as far as Russia.
They brought back their Koine Greek Bibles to Europe centuries later right around the time of the Reformation. It was Catholic priests such as Luther and Erasmus who learned how to read Greek and Latin that did much of the translation work.
Your entire statement is the common mantra. It is told by every minister's teacher to every minister in Seminary, who then goes on to repeat it to the congregation, passed down from generation to generation. Evidence is offered and there is evidence that supports it.
What about all the evidence that doesn't support it?
When you really dig into the evidence this statement starts to fall apart. I suggest you do so. See what you find. Look with a critical eye. Don't assume it is true. Look for the discrepancies. Look for the parts that don't make sense, such as YHWH demanding child sacrfice e.g., or "God changing" with the "new convenant." God (AKA Source) can't change. It is the Source of all things, including the things we call "good" or "evil" which while in some cases are congruent across societies, in others change drastically, even to opposite poles.
YHWH (whether he is Source or not) has a chosen people. Who are those chosen people? I don't mean who are the people The Church says are the chosen people (those who believe that YHWH is Source). Who are they really? Really look into why YHWH demands blood sacrifices, and "changed." Maybe that's not exactly what happened. Maybe by looking at "alternative" translations (alternate to the ones you know) you can see that. Maybe by realizing that there are numerous names that got translated into "God" in "The Good Book" you can see that there is more to the story. Maybe by realizing that what is translated into English (or Latin, or even the "new Jewish language" that injected vowels) is not self-consistent nor is it consistent with other works (otherwise canon books that didn't make it into the final cut, or other historical documents/archeology).
It is especially interesting when you start digging into other Religions, or scholarship on the religion that existed before the Jewish religion became monotheistic and was made into the defacto religion of the Jews around 800 BC. The "Torah" (AKA The Law that guided society) didn't really take hold for several hundred years. It was written by the Jewish Priest Class and it was used to rule the land of Israel. God demanded sacrifices and the "tithe" (including the best cuts of meat from sacrifices, etc.) from the people but it was the Jewish Priest Class that really got those best cuts of meat, and money (and still do today). When you really dig in, you find that the Jewish Priest Class is the same exact people that rules the world today.
When you use the word "God" everyone assumes you mean Source. Yet all Religions actually talk about very different "Gods," even if they are monotheistic, and so does the Bible. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe there is more to the story upon further scholarship outside of those who profess the "Bible is 100% true and correct."
I was expecting to hear about "all" of this evidence to the contrary, but you presented none.
The reason why what I am saying is true isn't because some pastor repeated it, but because actual Biblical Critics seasoned in the field of Ancient Textual Transmission have shown it to be the case. And this not only from bible believing scholars. Secular scholars have concluded the same thing. Now, those secular scholars may not agree with what is said and taught within the bible, but they don't take issue with it's authenticity and historical authenticity.
The rest of your comment is just an emotional diatribe filled with Red Herrings.
What I was doing was giving you a place to begin, and asking critical questions that you took as "emotional diatribe filled with Red Herrings" (which is itself a Red Herring argument. They were actual critical questions that you didn't address, but rather dismissed as "emotional diatribe").
The following pieces of evidence are not offered as "the truth," but rather as a place to start. In order to investigate anything in earnest it is essential to distinguish between the evidence, the argument, and the rhetoric that is contained in a presentation. It is the evidence that is most important. The argument (logic) is useful. The rhetoric, which fills up a lot of these things, is a lot less relevant. Rhetoric is the "convincing words" outside of evidence and argument (laid over the top) that attempt to persuade you to agree with what someone believes. Thus I offer these pieces of work for the evidence and argument that are included within them. Nothing more.
Deep dive into YHWH.
Yahweh and the Sun
Relationship between Egyptian and Hebrew religions:
https://www.academia.edu/33957139/Akhenatens_Monotheism_and_its_Relationship_with_Ancient_Hebrew_Religion
https://mikecrusoesblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/aten-and-yahweh-a-comparison-of-psalm-104-and-the-hymn-of-the-aten/
https://books.google.com/books?id=n3x46NoDOcUC
Other deities before Judaism became monotheistic
https://archive.org/details/earlyhistoryofgo0000smit
Judaism was henotheistic (not monotheistic)
"God" (really the people who wrote the Bible) states explicitly that his name is Jealous.
Don't worship "other gods" (an admittance there are other gods) because My name is Jealous. How can the Source of all things be so Jealous that he proclaims that as his name? What is there to be "Jealous" of if you are Source? This, by the way, is a critical question, not "emotional diatribe."
Jesus said he was the Son of God. He said we are ALL Children of God. Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The idea of this "dual nature of God" (Father and Son, where Jesus was exclusively the "Son of God" and the rest of us are not) wasn't part of the Christian tenet until it was made into law at the Nicene Convention three centuries after Jesus. This first ecumenical council was formed by a self-proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God to unite the disparate religions of the Roman Empire (pagan, Christian, Egyptian, Jewish, etc.) and thus gain Rulership of a failing nation by setting up a God-Emporer system. The idea of the Trinity didn't become an official thing until it too was written into law in 383 AD at the second ecumenical conference.
Once you start really digging into the primary evidence supplied by other religions that were prominent in the region (and across the world, since it was far more connected than "official history" would like us to believe) you see where the Religion we call "Christianity" really came from. The idea of the Trinity was strictly a pagan concept. It was included to appease all the pagans, and create a unifying religion to rule all of Europe.
None of this addresses all the books (that list is not comprehensive) that were previously canon that were left out of the final cut. The "alternate" gospels are particularly revealing.
This is the tip of the iceberg on the evidence I have gathered. At some point I will write it up formally. I am too busy revealing the first veil. The second will have to wait.
👍👍
The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
The page has been universally condemned by church leaders...
lol...it appears a lot of people on this forum just arent capable of laughing
The Feds aint no Dwarfers...
Almost ALL of the New Testament was codified before 70AD (the destruction of the Temple by the Romans).
That is roughly 40 years after Christ walked the earth. The book of Luke was written before that. 1 Corinthians contains a portion of text that dates to within 9 years of Christs death. I challenge ANYONE to find an ancient book from early antiquity that can compare to both the number of manuscripts the Bible possesses and the extremely short time gap in between our first copies and the original autographs (Original writing). There are none.
Homers Iliad? Written 500+ years after Homer lived. All of Aristotle and Plato's writings that you studied in College are taken from texts (copies) that post date the lives of those men by over 1000 years. Yet, no one doubts the words we read in those books are really Aristotle's words or Plato's words?? Why is that? ONLY when it comes to the Bible do we have this hyper skepticism regarding it's authenticity. Very interesting indeed.....
lol! Seriously!
This is often a point I make as well. If we were to go by the "skeptic's" standards, we would have to claim that the entirety of ancient history was invented in the middle ages.
One of the issues with skepticism in regards to the Bible is that it delineates precise and clear laws for conduct in this world. This is offensive and distasteful to people who have so much pride that they will not accept any higher authority than what they "feel". The Bible has been scrutinized with a million microscopes. Every bit that can be verified or disputed via secular history has been analyzed and scrutinized. This has resulted in the Bible being verified in every possible way with corroborating evidence. The verifiable information does not blanket vindicate all the writings within the Bible, however in every challenge presented, the Bible has been batting a thousand. This makes Faith far less of a stretch than is commonly comprehended. For the challengers to this topic, I readily accept any factual evidence that can be provided that disproves any information provided within the Bible.
Wat? This is website where most people are hyper skeptical about everything. I place almost no value on history from 50 years ago, but it's a big no-no to question history from 1993 years ago?
If trusting the historical accuracy of the Bible were the only way to Christ, I'd have never found him.
You’re teetering on Solipsism! Come back! History is knowable! If it weren’t, then how would I know you wrote this comment?
How will you truly know Christ if you don’t even trust His written word describing who He is?
Yep, kind of like the Dead Sea scrolls, so many “hidden books” were found but really they were gnostic texts, stories, fictional tales or popular books at the time. Just because it’s old and tries to sound biblical doesn’t mean it’s authoritative/inspired scripture.
The discovery of the DSS also corroborated the meticulous nature with which the Scribes penned these copies down through the ages.
A great example of this is the amazing accuracy between the scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran (which was discovered in its entirety) and our - at the time - most current copy. A 1000 yr gap. We’re talking letters. That’s right, letters. It’s virtually letter for letter the…same.
Clearly this is a testament to the way God has preserved His Word down through the centuries, protecting it from extinction and guarding it against significant error.
Yes, got those who say the Bible has been mishandled or misinterpreted through the years don’t know what they’re talking about. We have more literary proof for biblical texts than we do the works of Plato and Aristotle, yet no one questions those. Now I will say translating to English can be difficult and have some grammatical errors or contextual errors. Some bibles use a paraphrase vs an actual interpretation. Some of the biblical texts were written in various forms of poetic style, so the different translations seem to fall on a spectrum of word for word vs keeping the spirit of the poetic imagery if that makes sense.
You make a really good point.
What’s REALLY interesting about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts.
The vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing discovery in that the scrolls were in excellent condition and had remained hidden for so long (over 2000 years!).
yep
How do you come to that conclusion?
1500 years ago is not so biblically relevant I guess, but at the same time any discoveries is actually really intriguing because it's already so rare that we get to see so far back in time in any fashion.
I'm starting to feel like these days are biblically relevant. Like are people in the furture going to read some of the phrases we were inspired by God to utter?