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.
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.
👍👍