Posted on 05/06/2006 7:04:47 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Incorrect. The Gospel of John was written by the apostle. Many characteristics of John show how accurate and early it was: geographical details, speech patterns, and so forth.
Neither of those are true Bibles. They are unreliable and inacurrate.
Nonsense! These books have their place.
Thank you.
read later bump
According to that genius Dan Brown, the real ancient religion (of Jesus? - not clear on this) is Sophia Goddess Fertility Worship, with its chief liturgy consisting of the Horizontal Mambo.
We know this because The Last Supper, which definitely does not exist in its original, shows us all the hidden Da Vinci Code. Now that is an edited work. I wonder if a single orginal brushstroke survives.
And the Mona Lisa really spells out Amon Isis. Get the Da Vinci joke? Even Mona is smiling. Oh, wait. It was never called that during his lifetime. Nevermind.
So what else is new?
In my Bible class everyone has a different Bible. Someone even has that big, black floppy one with the red letters...you know the one Jesus (and Clinton) carried around.
But, they kinda all say the same thing.
The Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, who witnessed it all.
The Gospel of St. Matthew was written possibly as early as A.D. 60, probably before A.D. 70 (since it, or for that matter, any of the Gospels, does not mention the destruction of the temple in that year), and by no means any later than A.D. 100.
Sad.
Why do you think God sent Moroni?
I will mention why I prefer the King James Version. The KJV is really the Tyndale translation. Tyndale was burned at the stake for his trouble. The KJV scholars used Tyndale as the basis for their edition. Tyndale was within Luther's circle, another plus. The KJV was good enough that it was virtually the only English Bible until 1950. The KJV was supposed to be read out loud, so it reads well in public use and is easy to memorize. Modern versions are great if someone has a tin ear for the English language. The modern ones (even modern versions of the KJV) insert their doctrinal preferences into the word choices.
This is all part of the determined revival of the Gnostic heresy, represented by The Da Vinci Code, The Gospel of Judas, etc. And the above quote fits in exactly with the central heresy that marks the movement as evil, pure and simple.
"Christ left the Earth, His followeres were debating what His life and death really meant..."
Not "life, death and resurrection." They deny that happened because they insist He was not divine, merely a "good man" or a "rabbi." This is also a central tenet of Islam. Jesus is not God, is not His Son and forget about that whole Holy Spirit nonsense.
These works exist not to bring salvation or enlightment but to try and steal salvation and deny enlightenment by obscuring the truth with lies. As ever, their goal is unreachable, but they can bring pain, dissension, fear and doubt. I wonder who might enjoy inspiring that sort of mission? Certainly not God.
Simon Magus, Marcion, Valentinus, Carpocrates led the Gnostic heresies in scurrying behind the footsteps of the Apostles after the Christian faith began to spread. But Gnosticism predates Christ and goes back easily to the era of Cyrus in Babylon and perhaps beyond. It is most definitely not a monotheistic religion and rejects the God of Abraham and the Prophets virtually in their entirity. And it has continued to survive through the Christian era by hiding as some form of "secret society" avialable only to the "initiates" guarding some great knowledge.
The evil motives and tactics ascribed by Brown to Catholics in The Da Vinci Code are better seen as descriptions of the Gnostic views and practices, yet the Gnostics are the "worthy heros" struggling against their "evil oppressors" throughout history.
The basic threads of Gnosticism are also closely interwoven with Islam and illuminate that cults actions and aims. And again, they share the central and overwhelming insistence that Jesus was not divine. Both Islam and the so called "Christian" Gnostic heresies, particularly those represented in the Da Vinci Code, insist that Christ did not die on the Cross but "tricked" everyone and escaped. The Da Vinci Gnostics add the twist of a royal blood line descended from Jesus. And it is a variation on this theme that the NAZIs embraced in their particular occult system of beliefs.
My big question is "why now?" Why does the Gnostic heresy raise it's ugly head again, just in time for the resurgence of Jihadi militants? Whose interests are served?
"And you will know them by their fruits."
Let me guess......the Professor has now "discovered" he/she is gay, or bi-sexual?
There are over 20,000 manuscripts with our gospels all together. They were also all written within 100 years of Christ. The other gospels, commonly refered to as the Gnostic gospels, were written MUCH later. This guy does not know bibliology or hermenuetics.
You've also no doubt heard that Bill Clinton's administration was the most ethical administration ever.
I believe the first biography of Mohammed was written 200 years after his death. One story reveals that he was born already circumcised, that he fell onto the ground, raised up a hand full of dirt and said, "Praise Allah." Of course, 200 years after his birth, they may have gotten a few details wrong.
Hold your nose before you read this one.
Have you read his book, and/or do you know him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.