Other gospels than those in the NT?

onslaughtmusic · Post by **onslaughtmusic** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:30 am

Lilith is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 34:14, her name is translated as screech-owl however. It is because people (as it's apparent right here) find it hard to believe that Eve was not the 1st woman that there is so little evidence of Lilith. (at leas not when it comes to creationism theories) . Just like the gospels of Mary and Peter, and the preachings of Marcion were not included in the bible and were deemed heretic, banned, burned and buried records of Lilith were prosecuted by the church. But now people have found parts Peter's gospel in which it's said Jesus felt no pain or suffering when he was crucified. Contradicting the whole theory of Jesus being both human and divine (decided in the 3rd century during Constantine's reign. ) and that he suffered for all of our sins. We have Mary's gospel which says she was to be the 1st pope not Peter. Those are facts not mentioned in the bible as well but are still true. Bottom line is both Lilith and Mary's gospel portrait women as equals to men in a male dominant society and thus were frowned upon. I'm not going to reference my sources just Google it it's not that hard to find.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:56 am

onslaughtmusic wrote:Lilith is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 34:14, her name is translated as screech-owl however. It is because people (as it's apparent right here) find it hard to believe that Eve was not the 1st woman that there is so little evidence of Lilith. (at leas not when it comes to creationism theories) . Just like the gospels of Mary and Peter, and the preachings of Marcion were not included in the bible and were deemed heretic, banned, burned and buried records of Lilith were prosecuted by the church. But now people have found parts Peter's gospel in which it's said Jesus felt no pain or suffering when he was crucified. Contradicting the whole theory of Jesus being both human and divine (decided in the 3rd century during Constantine's reign. ) and that he suffered for all of our sins. We have Mary's gospel which says she was to be the 1st pope not Peter. Those are facts not mentioned in the bible as well but are still true. Bottom line is both Lilith and Mary's gospel portrait women as equals to men in a male dominant society and thus were frowned upon. I'm not going to reference my sources just Google it it's not that hard to find.

There are a great deal of fake documents out there.

See Phillipians. It was written by Paul sometime between AD 54 and 63, not in the 3rd century. Phip 2:6-22 speaks of Jesus being a man, being a servant, and suffering death. Paul later states that he wants to have fellowship in Jesus' sufferings (Phip 3:10). There are other verses that attest to Christ suffering on the cross, and these books in the bible were all written prior to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here's a good online article from y-jesus.com: Mona Lisa's Smirk

onslaughtmusic · Post by **onslaughtmusic** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:26 am

cslewislover wrote:

See Phillipians. It was written by Paul sometime between AD 54 and 63, not in the 3rd century. Phip 2:6-22 speaks of Jesus being a man, being a servant, and suffering death. Paul later states that he wants to have fellowship in Jesus' sufferings (Phip 3:10). There are other verses that attest to Christ suffering on the cross, and these books in the bible were all written prior to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here's a good online article, "MONA LISA'S SMIRK:
Was there a Da Vinci Conspiracy?" (from y-jesus.com): http://y-jesus.com/monalisa.php[/color]

I was not referring to Paul.......I was talking about Peter? Or did you misread? Yes Jesus' favorite man Peter had a gospel too banned and forgotten by the church. And i was simply pointing out that the issue of Jesus being human or divine was officially resolved in the 3rd century. Up until then the topic was a controversial issue and under debate. My point was if all holy texts were included the bible would be even more controversial than it is now not only in a science vs creation concept but the profits contradicting them selfs, which in the end will not convince anyone it's true if one guy says jesus was human another he was a god and a 3rd saying he never even died on the cross, so they just included the ones that made most sense and were fit for society at that time, the others banned and forgotten.

jlay · Post by **jlay** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:31 am

onslaughtmusic wrote:My point was if all holy texts were included the bible would be even more controversial than it is now not only in a science vs creation concept but the profits contradicting them selfs, which in the end will not convince anyone it's true if one guy says jesus was human another he was a god and a 3rd saying he never even died on the cross, so they just included the ones that made most sense and were fit for society at that time, the others banned and forgotten.

Well I'm sure many here can link you to the explanations of this. This is just wholly untrue and seems more like a regurgitated talking point snipped from some anti-christian rhetoric than an original thought.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:35 am

onslaughtmusic wrote:
cslewislover wrote:

See Phillipians. It was written by Paul sometime between AD 54 and 63, not in the 3rd century. Phip 2:6-22 speaks of Jesus being a man, being a servant, and suffering death. Paul later states that he wants to have fellowship in Jesus' sufferings (Phip 3:10). There are other verses that attest to Christ suffering on the cross, and these books in the bible were all written prior to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here's a good online article, "MONA LISA'S SMIRK:
Was there a Da Vinci Conspiracy?" (from y-jesus.com): http://y-jesus.com/monalisa.php[/color]
I was not referring to Paul.......I was talking about Peter? Or did you misread? Yes Jesus' favorite man Peter had a gospel too banned and forgotten by the church. And i was simply pointing out that the issue of Jesus being human or divine was officially resolved in the 3rd century. Up until then the topic was a controversial issue and under debate. My point was if all holy texts were included the bible would be even more controversial than it is now not only in a science vs creation concept but the profits contradicting them selfs, which in the end will not convince anyone it's true if one guy says jesus was human another he was a god and a 3rd saying he never even died on the cross, so they just included the ones that made most sense and were fit for society at that time, the others banned and forgotten.

I didn't misread. LOL. You need to read on what makes the bible the bible--how we got our canon. Paul has just as much authority as Peter, in any case. What you are saying is totally false. There was no issue about Jesus being human or divine before the 3rd century, at least not in the way you are presenting here. All ancient texts aren't holy, all are not inspired by God; in fact, much of the NT as we have it is dealing with heresies that had already taken hold of people very early in the church. The people that made up the church - the original apostles and their close associates - wrote what is in the bible today. Other documents were thrown out because people at that time and shortly thereafter knew they were fraudulent. Read the link I provided.

onslaughtmusic · Post by **onslaughtmusic** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:57 am

The original Gospel of Peter now resides in the Museum of Cairo
You can find translations here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... brown.html
here:
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html
here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html

and probably many many other translations if you look it up. Pay attention to p4 "And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the 11 Lord between them. But he kept silence, as one feeling no pain"
The text was deemed heretic because it says Jesus did not feel pain. These texts were popular and even more accepted than the 4 included in the bible. They were deemed heretic by a handful of people in the 3rd century, not by the majority. Those texts WERE holy by the people of that time and were refused by the political agenda of the church. Now you say the 4 texts in the bible are the truth, only truth and nothing of the truth, then explain why Paul's gospel has more weight over Peter? Wasn't Peter jesus' favorite? Shouldn't Peter's gospel be the truth instead of paul? How do you explain that?

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:04 pm

Just as a quick observation first, why would that quote mean that Jesus felt no pain??? Just because someone doesn't show it, or show it a lot, doesn't necessarily mean they don't feel it.

Edit (quoted from source below):

The Gospel of Peter

pseudepigraphal (noncanonical and unauthentic) Christian writing of the mid-2nd century ad, the extant portion of which covers the condemnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus. Because the work reflects the view that Christ's body had only the appearance of reality, Serapion, bishop of Antioch c. ad 190, believed it was written by a member of the heretical Docetist sect. Modern scholars are more inclined to attribute it to a Syrian Christian Gnostic because the Gospel does not view the Crucifixion as an act of atonement. But it lacks the mythological or cosmological speculations characteristic of most Gnostic sects. Possibly to convince non-Christians of the truth of the Resurrection, the Gospel of Peter goes beyond the canonical Gospels in claiming that Roman soldiers and Jewish officials witnessed the event.

Citations

MLA Style:
"Gospel of Peter." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 08 Oct. 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... l-of-Peter>.

Gabrielman · Post by **Gabrielman** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:32 pm

Onslaught, are you really here to seek answers, or are you just going to keep plugging those old, worn out, out dated and quite useless anti-Christian arguments that have been proven wrong by believers and non-believer scholars alike. Not only do none of your arguments hold any merit, but time and again they are answered with the greatest of ease. It just seems like at times people are grasping for straws to debunk God, an impossible task. Read the main site, then try again. All the quetions you have asked so far are answered there, so there is no reason to rewrite them here. That's the problem. People come here to debate, and they never even read the main site. Then we end up having to write the answers out for them because they just don't want to look at the main site and read it there. When I ask a question here, I go to the main site first to find an answer. If I cannot then I ask here and get an answer. This argument is so old, that it is hardly worth answering. There are all kinds of false documents throughout history, not just towards faith either. There are false scientific claims too, made by atheists. This only proves that dishonest people exist.

jlay wrote:
onslaughtmusic wrote:My point was if all holy texts were included the bible would be even more controversial than it is now not only in a science vs creation concept but the profits contradicting them selfs, which in the end will not convince anyone it's true if one guy says jesus was human another he was a god and a 3rd saying he never even died on the cross, so they just included the ones that made most sense and were fit for society at that time, the others banned and forgotten.
Well I'm sure many here can link you to the explanations of this. This is just wholly untrue and seems more like a regurgitated talking point snipped from some anti-christian rhetoric than an original thought.

I agree completely.

cslewislover wrote:I didn't misread. LOL. You need to read on what makes the bible the bible--how we got our canon. Paul has just as much authority as Peter, in any case. What you are saying is totally false. There was no issue about Jesus being human or divine before the 3rd century, at least not in the way you are presenting here. All ancient texts aren't holy, all are not inspired by God; in fact, much of the NT as we have it is dealing with heresies that had already taken hold of people very early in the church. The people that made up the church - the original apostles and their close associates - wrote what is in the bible today. Other documents were thrown out because people at that time and shortly thereafter knew they were fraudulent. Read the link I provided.

I liked this response CSLL

. Can I ask you a question, about some extra biblical texts? The book of Enoch, why isn't it in the Bible, I have read part of it, but where can I get a whole copy? Wasn't it in the OT too? LOL, sorry for all the questions, I just like that book so I was wondering. How about some coffee?

LOL, I will need some if I am going to work on this thread.
Sorry if my response seems a little harsh, but I have heard these same old arguments time and again, and they have been answered like 1000 times already. Jesus is God, and when He was here on earth He was fully God and fully human. He suffered and died for our sins. He came down to sacrifice Himself so that you and I could be saved. Please, and I mean this in the kindest of ways, just read the main site to answer your quetions first, then if you can't find it there we will be happy to help. Just keep your mind open and be ready to accept when you are wrong about something. We want genuine questions from genuine seekers. If you already have made your mind up about God and what you want to believe then this site really isn't for you. If you are a true seeker then I welcome you here to learn and find answers.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:47 pm

Gabrielman wrote: I liked this response CSLL . Can I ask you a question, about some extra biblical texts? The book of Enoch, why isn't it in the Bible, I have read part of it, but where can I get a whole copy? Wasn't it in the OT too? LOL, sorry for all the questions, I just like that book so I was wondering. How about some coffee?

LOL, I will need some if I am going to work on this thread.

Hey Gabrielman!!! Here's a link about the Book of Enoch http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html that is pretty short and answers well, I think. It isn't by Enoch, for one thing, and is only in Ethiopian, so . . . It may be interesting and have some true things in it, but it can't be considered inspired. I think the whole thing is here, though: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... /enoch.htm

I would love some coffee, thanks!! I need to run, though, so it'll have to be Starbucks!!

Gabrielman · Post by **Gabrielman** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:51 pm

Thanks CSLL! See you when you get back!

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:09 pm

Gabrielman wrote:Thanks CSLL! See you when you get back!

Any more, and it will have to be decaffeinated!

Did you read Enoch? Maybe I should find out more about that "Gospel of Peter," just to present more info . . .

* * *

Here is some info on the "Gospel of Mary," which is a Gnostic forgery (from gotquestions.org): What is the gospel of Mary (Magdalene)?

Gabrielman · Post by **Gabrielman** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:55 pm

Okay I read the one article, didn't read the book yet though. One more question I have to ask is, didn't Jesus also quote from the book of Solomen? I need to look up where that's at in the Bible, but Solmen's book is no where to be found there. I wonder if it was taken out, or if it was ever in there to begin with... anywho, so just wondering why Jesus quoted from a book that would not seem Biblical is all. Let me see if I can find that part......

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:02 pm

Gabrielman wrote:Okay I read the one article, didn't read the book yet though. One more question I have to ask is, didn't Jesus also quote from the book of Solomen? I need to look up where that's at in the Bible, but Solmen's book is no where to be found there. I wonder if it was taken out, or if it was ever in there to begin with... anywho, so just wondering why Jesus quoted from a book that would not seem Biblical is all. Let me see if I can find that part......

You're probably referring to the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon, but he also wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I'd need to look up the quote.

Gabrielman · Post by **Gabrielman** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:49 pm

cslewislover wrote:You're probably referring to the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon, but he also wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I'd need to look up the quote.

Actually I was meaning a book called the testament of Solomon where Solomon aparently used a ring Michael gave him to force demons to build the temple against their will. I can't remember where it is in the Bible Jesus quoted it, if at all. I heard somewhere He quoted it before or after a healing.... not completely sure.
Thanks for all your answeres!

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:01 am

Gabrielman wrote:
cslewislover wrote:You're probably referring to the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon, but he also wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I'd need to look up the quote.
Actually I was meaning a book called the testament of Solomon where Solomon aparently used a ring Michael gave him to force demons to build the temple against their will. I can't remember where it is in the Bible Jesus quoted it, if at all. I heard somewhere He quoted it before or after a healing.... not completely sure.
Thanks for all your answeres!

I've never heard of that!

Oh, ok, I looked it up. This is from here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... -notes.htm. Jesus couldn't have quoted it since it was written after he died (and rose). Wikipedia also has an article on it.

The Testament of Solomon is a testament in name only. It actually belongs to the genre of magical literature, with a few features of testamentary literature added. The story takes the form of a haggadic folktale in which Israel's King Solomon employs magic to force demons to aid with the construction of the Temple. The author also links demonology with astrology and provides information regarding ancient magic, medicine, astrology, and angelology.

Canonical Status: Old Testament pseudepigrapha

Sources:

* 1 Kgs 9:5-14 (LXX 4:29-34)

* Widespread Jewish traditions about Solomon's magical wisdom

Author:

* Allegedly the last words of King Solomon, the pseudonym of the actual author

* An anonymous Christian, probably of Egypt, attracted to "white" (protective) magic

Date: 1st to 3rd centuries AD

Original Language: Koinē Greek

Evidence for God from Science

Other gospels than those in the NT?

Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?

Re: Other gospels than those in the NT?