|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,371,368 members, 5,277,197 topics. Date: Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 09:55 AM
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 12:46pm On Sep 30, 2012|
mileseer: Nothing, since one doesn't exist.How then do u think u nd the entire world u live in came into existence? Let it be known to u that in as much as God is so merciful and tolerant to take shit(blasphemy) from his creation, HE is as well a "consuming fire". Acknowledge Him today nd turn a new live.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by pheemmii: 12:46pm On Sep 30, 2012|
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 12:50pm On Sep 30, 2012|
THE HOLY FORGERY MILL Ho From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities. Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle- making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in “saving souls.” Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanied its foundation, Christianity’s history is rife with forgery and fraud. So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself. In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures. Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic Christian “doctor” and saint, Augustine (354-430), admitted, “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so. Nevertheless, the “monumentally superstitious and credulous Child of Faith” Augustine must not have been too resistant, because he already accepted “as historic truth the fabulous founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, their virgin-birth by the god Mars, and their nursing by the she-wolf . . .” Apparently unable to convince himself rationally of the validity of his faith, early Church father Tertullian (c. 160-200) made the notorious statement, “Credo quia incredibilis est—I believe because it is unbelievable.” An “ex-Pagan,” Tertullian vehemently and irrationally defended his new faith, considered fabricated by other Pagans, by acknowledging that Christianity was “a shameful thing” and “monstrously absurd”: . . . I maintain that the Son of God was born; why am I not ashamed of maintaining such a thing? Why! but because it is itself a shameful thing. I maintain that the Son of God died: well, that is wholly credible because it is monstrously absurd. I maintain that after having been buried, he rose again: and that I take to be absolutely true, because it was manifestly impossible. In addition to confessions of incredulity by Pagans and Christians alike, we also encounter repeated accusations and admissions of forgery and fraud. While the masses are led to believe that the Christian religion was founded by a historical wonderworker and his devoted eyewitnesses who accurately wrote down the events of his life and ministry in marvelous books that became “God’s Word,” the reality is that none of the gospels was written by its purported author and, indeed, no mention of any New Testament text can be found in writings prior to the beginning of the second century of the Common Era (“CE”), long after the purported events. These “holy” books, then, so revered by devotees, turn out to be spurious, and since it is in them that we find the story of Christ, we must be doubtful as to its validity as well. Regarding the canonical gospels, Wheless states: The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. . . . As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, “With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.” Bronson Keeler, in A Short History of the Bible, concurs: They are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them. In The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, John Remsburg elucidates: The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin)¾do not occur once in all his writings.” And Waite says: At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed authors, except John. Once his name occurs; not, however, as the author of a gospel, but in such a connection as raises a very strong presumption that Justin knew of no gospel of John the Apostle. Waite further states: No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament. . . . No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the exploration of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character. . . . The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages, earlier than the third century. In The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Barbara Walker relates: The discovery that the Gospels were forged, centuries later than the events they described, is still not widely known even though the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning . . . has no foundation in history.” No extant manuscript can be dated earlier than the 4th century A.D.; most were written even later. The oldest manuscripts contradict one another, as also do even the present canon of synoptic Gospels. In fact, as Waite says, “Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. ”The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works,l catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these “documents” were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the “Lord and Savior,” whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would appear to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the “infallible Word of God” was “corrected” again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major “revisions” have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning. It has never been only nonbelieving detractors who have made such allegations of falsification and deceit by the biblical writers. Indeed, those individuals who concocted some of the hundreds of “alternative” gospels and epistles being circulated during the first several centuries even admitted that they forged the texts. Of these numerous manuscripts, the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, as quoted by Wheless: Enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended gospels full of romantic fables, and fantastic and striking details; their fabrications were eagerly read and accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no motive other than that of a PIOUS FRAUD. Forgery during the first centuries of the Church’s existence was thus admittedly rampant, so common in fact that this phrase, “pious fraud,” was coined to describe it. Furthermore, while admitting that the Catholics were engaged in fraud, the Catholic Encyclopedia is also implying that the Gnostics were truthful in regard to the fictitious and allegorical nature of their texts. Regarding this Catholic habit of fraud, Mangasarian states in The Truth about Jesus: The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, “The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud.” . . . Again, he says: “The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy.” Will not some believer tell us why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus. . . . Another historian, Milman, writes that, “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed by the early missionaries of Jesus.” “It was an age of literary frauds,” writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive.” And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.” So fundamental to “the faith” was fraud that Wheless remarked: The clerical confessions of lies and frauds in the ponderous volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia alone suffice . . . to wreck the Church and to destroy utterly the Christian religion. . . . The Church exists mostly for wealth and self- aggrandizement; to quit paying money to the priests would kill the whole scheme in a couple of years. This is the sovereign remedy. According to Christian father and Church historian Eusebius (260?-340?), Bishop of Corinth Dionysius lashed out against forgers who had mutilated not only his letters but the gospels themselves: When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. . . . Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts. These statements by Dionysius imply that the letters and gospels were mutilated by his “fellow-Christians” themselves, as the letters were presumably in their possession, unless they were hijacked along the way by some other “devil’s apostles,” and as the “the word of the Lord” certainly was in the possession of Christians and no others. In addition, a number of the fathers, such as Eusebius himself, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what “the Lord” said and did during “his” alleged sojourn upon the earth. In one of his works, Eusebius provides a handy chapter entitled: “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.” Of Eusebius, Waite writes, “Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character, darken the pages of his apologetic and historical writings.” Wheless also calls Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius “three luminous liars.” Keeler states, “The early Christian fathers were extremely ignorant and superstitious; and they were singularly incompetent to deal with the supernatural.” Larson concludes that many early bishops “like Jerome, Antony, and St. Martin, were definitely psychotic. In fact, there was scarcely a single Father in the ancient Church who was not tainted with heresy, mental aberration, or moral enormity.” Thus, deceiving, mentally ill individuals basically constitute the genesis Christianity. Of their products, Wheless further remarks: If the pious Christians, confessedly, committed so many and so extensive forgeries and frauds to adapt these popular Jewish fairy-tales of their God and holy Worthies to the new Christian Jesus and his Apostles, we need feel no surprise when we discover these same Christians forging outright new wonder-tales of their Christ under the fiction of the most noted Christian names and in the guise of inspired Gospels, Epistles, Acts and Apocalypses. . . . He continues: Half a hundred of false and forged Apostolic “Gospels of Jesus Christ,” together with more numerous other “Scripture” forgeries, was the output, so far as known now, of the lying pens of the pious Christians of the first two centuries of the Christian “Age of Apocryphal Literature” Wheless also reports the Protestant Encyclopedia Biblica as stating, “Almost every one of the Apostles had a Gospel fathered upon him by one early sect or another.” Doane relates the words of Dr. Conyers Middleton on the subject of biblical forgery: There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history, in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ, and the Apostles, and the Apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages. Several of these forged books are frequently cited and applied to the defense of Christianity, by the most eminent fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces. Wheless demonstrates how low the fathers and doctors of texts were willing to stoop: . . . If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit? Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: “Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie.” But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own handwriting? The “Little Liars of the Lord” were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God—false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustless mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia [CE]. Indeed, Christian tradition pretends that Christ was extremely renowned evenduring his own time, having exchanged correspondence with King Abgar of Syria, who was most pleased to have the Christian savior take refuge in his country.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 12:52pm On Sep 30, 2012|
The Epistles The various Pauline epistles contained in the New Testament form an important part of Christianity, yet these “earliest” of Christian texts never discuss a historical background of Jesus, even though Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus’s advent and surely would have known about his master’s miraculous life. Instead, these letters deal with a spiritual construct found in various religions, sects, cults and mystery schools for hundreds to thousands of years prior to the Christian era. As Dujardin points out, the Pauline literature “does not refer to Pilate or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion." Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all of which would presumably be very important to Jesus’s followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to Paul. Mangasarian then understandably asks: Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people to the teachings of Jesus, as Paul did, without ever quoting a single one of his sayings? Had Paul known that Jesus had preached a sermon, or formulated a prayer, or said many inspired things about the here and the hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and then, from the words of his master. If Christianity could have been established without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why then, did Jesus come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by divine inspiration?. . . If Paul knew of a miracle-working Jesus, one who could feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, who could command the grave to open, who could cast out devils, and cleanse the land of the foulest disease of leprosy, who could, and did, perform many other wonderful works to convince the unbelieving generation of his divinity—is it conceivable that either intentionally or inadvertently he would have never once referred to them in all his preaching?. . . The position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel Jesus. In fact, even though the “Lord’s Prayer” is clearly spelled out in the gospels as being given directly from Jesus’s mouth, Paul expresses that he does not know how to pray. Paul’s Jesus is also very different from that of the gospels. As Wells says: . . . these epistles are not merely astoundingly silent about the historical Jesus, but also that the Jesus of Paul’s letters (the earliest of the NT epistles and hence the earliest extant Christian documents) is in some respects incompatible with the Jesus of the gospels; that neither Paul, nor those of his Christian predecessors whose views he assimilates into his letters, nor the Christian teachers he attacks in them, are concerned with such a person. . . So it appears that Paul, even though he speaks of “the gospel,” had never heard of the canonical gospels or even an orally transmitted life of Christ. The few “historical” references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are the epistles themselves, not having been written by the Pharisee/ Roman “Paul” at all, as related by Wheless: The entire “Pauline group” is the same forged class . . . says E.B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . “With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, . . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long ‘universally’ regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). They are thus all uninspired anonymous church forgeries for Christ’s sweet sake! In The Myth of the Historical Jesus, Hayyim ben Yehoshua evinces that the orthodox dates of the Pauline epistles (c. 49-70) cannot be maintained, also introducing one of the most important individuals in the formation of Christianity, the Gnostic-Christian “heretic” Marcion of Pontus (c. 100-160), a well-educated “man of letters” who entered the brotherhood and basically took the reins of the fledgling Gnostic- Christian movement: We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Antithesis. Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle of Paul to Titus were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the “pastoral epistles.” The ten remaining “non-pastoral” epistles written in the name of Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in Paul’s name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. . . . The non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125 C.E.) uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100-125 C.E. However, we are left with the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 CE.) Some of the Pauline epistles appear to have been altered and edited numerous times before reaching their modern forms. . We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus. It is clear that the epistles do not demonstrate a historical Jesus and are not as early as they are pretended to be, written or edited by a number of hands over several decades during the second century, such that the “historical” Jesus apparently was not even known at that late point. As is also evidenced, these texts were further mutilated over the centuries.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 12:52pm On Sep 30, 2012|
THE GOSPELS Although they are held up by true believers to be the “inspired” works of the apostles, the canonical gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180, a date that just happens to correspond with the establishment of the orthodoxy and supremacy of the Roman Church. Despite the claims of apostolic authorship, the gospels were not mere translations of manuscripts written in Hebrew or Aramaic by Jewish apostles, because they were originally written in Greek. As Waite relates: It is noticeable that in every place in the gospels but one (and the total number is nearly a hundred) where Peter is mentioned, the Greek name “Petros” is given, which is supposed to be used by Jews as well as others. This would indicate that all the canonical gospels, Matthew included, are original Greek productions. Of these Greek texts and their pretended apostolic attribution, Wells states: a Galilean fisherman could not have written what Kümmel calls such “cultivated Greek,” with “many rhetorical devices,” and with all the Old Testament quotations and allusions deriving from the Greek version of these scriptures, not from the Hebrew original. Furthermore, as stated and as is also admitted by the writer of Luke when he says that there were many versions of “the narrative,” there were numerous gospels in circulation prior to the composition of his gospel. In fact, of the dozens of gospels that existed during the first centuries of the Christian era, several once considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as “apocryphal” or spurious, and vice versa. Out of these numerous gospels the canonical gospels were chosen by Church father and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus (c. 120-c. 200), who claimed that the number four was based on the “four corners of the world.” In reality, this comment is Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of the Egyptian Ritual, facts that provide hints as to where our quest is heading. According to some early Christians, the gospel of Matthew is the earliest, which is why it appears first in the canon. However, as noted, the gospels have been arranged in virtually every order, and scholars of the past few centuries have considered Mark to be the earliest, used by the writers/compilers of Matthew and Luke. Going against this trend, Waite evinced that Luke was first followed by Mark, John and Matthew. In fact, these gospels were written not from each other but from common source material, including the narrative, or Diegesis, as it is in the original Greek. The first gospel of the “narrative” type, in actuality, appears to have been the proto- Lukan text, the “Gospel of the Lord,” published in Rome by the Gnostic- Christian Marcion, as part of his “New Testament.” As Waite relates: The first New Testament that ever appeared, was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of “The Gospel,” and “The Apostolicon.” No acts—no Revelation, and but one gospel. The Apostolicon comprised ten of Paul’s Epistles, as follows: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, except the 15th and 16th chapters, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; arranged in the order as here named. This canon of the New Testament was prepared and published shortly after his arrival in Rome; probably about 145 A.D. Baring-Gould thinks he brought the gospel from Sinope. . . . [Marcion’s] gospel resembles the Gospel of Luke, but is much shorter. It is interesting to note that the two missing chapters of Romans are historicizing, whereas the rest of the epistle is not. Furthermore, the gospel referred to by Paul in this epistle and others has been termed the “Gospel of Paul,” presumed lost but in reality claimed by Marcion to be a book he found at Antioch, along with 10 “Pauline” epistles, and then edited, bringing it around 139-142 to Rome, where he translated it into both Greek and Latin.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 12:53pm On Sep 30, 2012|
THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD Originally in the Syro-Chaldee or Samaritan language, Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord, which predated the canonical gospels by decades, represents the basic gospel narrative, minus key elements that demonstrate the conspiracy. Although much the same as the later Gospel of Luke, Marcion’s gospel was Gnostic, non- historical, and did not make Jesus a Jewish man, i.e., he was not born in Bethlehem and was not from Nazareth, which did not even exist at the time. In Marcion’s gospel there is no childhood history, as Marcion’s Jesus was not born but “came down at Capernaum,” i.e., appeared, in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the very sentence used in Luke to “prove” Jesus’s historicity. Marcion’s original, nonhistoricizing and non-Judaizing New Testament was a thorn in the side of the carnalizing conspirators, who were compelled to put a spin on the facts by claiming that the “heretic” had expurgated the gospel of Luke, removing the genealogies and other “historical”and “biographical” details, for example. Thus, Marcion was accused of “purging the letters of Paul and Luke of ‘Jewish traits,’” an allegation that served as a subterfuge to hide the fact that Marcion’s Jesus was indeed not a Jewish man who had incarnated a century before. However, as demonstrated by Waite and others, Marcion’s gospel was first, and Luke was created from it. Thus, it was not Marcion who had mutilated the texts but the historicizers who followed and added to his.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by DollyParton1(f): 12:55pm On Sep 30, 2012|
^^^^^seriously? we are suppose to read that?
I call him "Agbanilagbatan"= the who saves/rescue completely/totally
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 12:57pm On Sep 30, 2012|
The Gospel of Luke (170 CE) The Gospel of Luke is acknowledged by early church fathers to be of a late date. As Waite states:. . Jerome admits that not only the Gospel of Basilides, composed about A.D. 125, and other gospels, admitted to have been first published in the second century, were written before that of Luke, but even the Gospel of Apelles also, which was written not earlier than A.D. 160. Like the rest of the gospels Luke fits into the timeframe of having been written between 170-180, as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:. . . according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was not written till nearly two hundred years after this event [of Jesus’s departure]. The proof offered is that the Theophilus to whom Luke addressed it was bishop of Antioch from 169-177 A.D. The Gospel of Luke is a compilation of dozens of older manuscripts, 33 by one count, including the Gospel of the Lord. In using Marcion’s gospel, the Lukan writer (s) interpolated and removed textual matter in order both to historicize the story and to Judaize Marcion’s Jesus. In addition to lacking the childhood or genealogy found in the first two chapters of Luke, Marcion also was missing nearly all of the third chapter, save the bit about Capernaum, all of which were interpolated into Luke to give Jesus a historical background and Jewish heritage. Also, where Marcion’s gospel speaks of Jesus coming to Nazareth, Luke adds, “where he had been brought up,” a phrase missing from Marcion that is a further attempt on Luke’s part to make Jesus Jewish. Another example of the historicizing and Judaizing interpolation of the compiler(s) of Luke into Marcion can be found in the portrayal of Christ’s passion, which is represented in Marcion thus: Saying, the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be put to death, and after three days rise again. At Luke 9:22, the passage is rendered thus: Saying, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” The inclusion of “elders and the chief priests and scribes” represents an attempt to make the story seem as if it happened one time in history, as opposed to the recurring theme in a savior-god cult and mystery school indicated by Marcion. Of this Lukan creation, Massey says: It can be proved how passage after passage has been added to the earlier gospel, in the course of manufacturing the later history. For example, the mourning over Jerusalem (Luke. 29-35) is taken verbatim from the 2nd Esdras (i. 28-33) without acknowledgement, and the words previously uttered by the “Almighty Lord” are here assigned to Jesus as the original speaker.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rofemiguwa(f): 12:58pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Jehovah ever faithful.the one and only true God.ngalaba ji isi ulo mu.
For all d atheist here.may God forgive u all with ur foolish and empty reasoning
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 12:59pm On Sep 30, 2012|
I call him God
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 1:01pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Op, His names are legion but, i like hailing Him with these. He is the Alpha nd Omega, He is the God that sits in the Heavens nd makes the earth His foot stool, Nwa nne otu onye etc. brb
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 1:11pm On Sep 30, 2012|
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (178 CE) The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman Church: So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers. . . . Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145. [T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid. . . . There is a reason to believe that both [John and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome. The tone of this gospel is anti-Jewish, revealing that it was written/compiled by a non-Jew, possibly a “Gentile” or an “exiled” Israelite of a different tribe, such as a Samaritan, who not only spoke of “the Jews” as separate and apart from him but also was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. As Waite also says: There are also many errors in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a “city of Samaria, called Sychar.” If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resided in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed. In addition, as Keeler states: The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace. Furthermore, the writer of John relates several events at which the apostle John was not depicted as having appeared and does not record others at which he is said to have been present. Moreover, John is the only gospel containing the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which is an Egyptian myth. That the Gospel of John served as a refutation of the Gnostics, or an attempt to usurp their authority and to bring them into the “fold,” is obvious from its Gnostic style. In fact, it has been suggested that the author of John used Cerinthus’s own gospel to refute the “heretic.” As Waite relates: The history as well as the writings of Cerinthus are strangely blended with those of John the presbyter, and even with John the apostle. . . . A sect called the Alogi attributed to him [Cerinthus] (so says Epiphanius), the gospel, as well as the other writings of John.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 1:16pm On Sep 30, 2012|
The Gospel of Mark (175 CE) After the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans in 135, the Jerusalem church was taken over by non- Jews. Of this destruction and appropriation, Eusebius says: When in this way the city was closed to the Jewish race and suffered the total destruction of its former inhabitants, it was colonized by an alien race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name, so that now, in honour of the emperor then reigning, Aelius Hadrianus, it is known as Aelia. Furthermore, as the church in the city was now composed of Gentiles, the first after the bishops of the Circumcision to be put in charge of the Christians there was Mark. This devastation and changeover occurred in the 18th year of Hadrian’s rule, i.e., 135 CE; thus, we see that this Mark of whom Eusebius speaks could not have been the disciple Mark. The date is, however, perfect for the Gnostic Marcion. Eusebius provides confirmation of this association of Mark with Marcion when he immediately follows his comment about Mark with a discussion of “Leaders at that time of Knowledge falsely so called,” i.e., Gnostics and Gnosis. Indeed, legend held that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome and brought it to Alexandria, where he established churches, while Marcion purportedly published his gospel in Rome and no doubt went to Alexandria at some point. Like Waite, Mead also does not put Mark first: “It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use most the material contained in our Mk. . .”In fact, all three manuscripts used Marcion as one of their sources. Like Marcion, Mark has no genealogy; unlike Marcion, he begins his story with John the Baptist, the hero of the Nazarenes/Mandaeans, added to incorporate that faction. The Gospel of Mark was admittedly tampered with, as is noted in the New Testament, with several verses (16:9-20) regarding the resurrected apparition and ascension added to the end. Here we have absolute proof of the gospels being changed to fit the circumstances, rather than recording “history.” Mark also provides an example of how interpolation was used to set the story in a particular place: For instance, Mk. 1:16 reads: “And passing along by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew . . .” Almost all commentators agree that the words “by the sea of Galilee” were added by Mark. They are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek syntax . . . Mark, then, has interpolated a reference to place into a report which lacked it . . . As to the authorship of Mark, ben Yehoshua says, “. . . the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.” It would seem, then, that the compiler of Mark used the Latin version of Marcion’s gospel, while Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, accounting for the variances between them. Indeed, the author of Mark was clearly not a Palestinian Jew, as Wells points out that Mark “betrays in 7:31 an ignorance of Palestinian geography.”
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by mileseer: 1:16pm On Sep 30, 2012|
latest: How then do u think u nd the entire world u live in came into existence? Let it be known to u that in as much as God is so merciful and tolerant to take shit(blasphemy) from his creation, HE is as well a "consuming fire". Acknowledge Him today nd turn a new live.
There are credible scientific explanations to how the universe came into existence. All you have to do is go to your nearest library and get yourself some book. Challenge yourself in this field. Don't allow others to do the thinking for you. Question your belief system...research, read more, and try to ascertain the real truth on your own. I understand this may be difficult for you but trust me you be would glad you did. Ask yourself this...why do I question other people's belief system yet never does the same to mine? Put yourself in others shoe and question your belief system. Intelligent and scientific books would set you free, trust me on that.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by rhymz(m): 1:19pm On Sep 30, 2012|
The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE) Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a “translation” of a manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says: The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts. The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter. It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, “In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth.”
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by sugar001(f): 1:25pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Billyonaire: The Cosmic!...... Are you a Rosicrucian? Winks.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Amecharaovoko(m): 1:26pm On Sep 30, 2012|
rhymz: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (178 CE) The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman Church: So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers. . . . Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145. [T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid. . . . There is a reason to believe that both [John and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome. The tone of this gospel is anti-Jewish, revealing that it was written/compiled by a non-Jew, possibly a “Gentile” or an “exiled” Israelite of a different tribe, such as a Samaritan, who not only spoke of “the Jews” as separate and apart from him but also was not familiar with the geography of Palestine. As Waite also says: There are also many errors in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a “city of Samaria, called Sychar.” If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resided in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed. In addition, as Keeler states: The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace. Furthermore, the writer of John relates several events at which the apostle John was not depicted as having appeared and does not record others at which he is said to have been present. Moreover, John is the only gospel containing the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which is an Egyptian myth. That the Gospel of John served as a refutation of the Gnostics, or an attempt to usurp their authority and to bring them into the “fold,” is obvious from its Gnostic style. In fact, it has been suggested that the author of John used Cerinthus’s own gospel to refute the “heretic.” As Waite relates: The history as well as the writings of Cerinthus are strangely blended with those of John the presbyter, and even with John the apostle. . . . A sect called the Alogi attributed to him [Cerinthus] (so says Epiphanius), the gospel, as well as the other writings of John..
But is this what the thread is all about ? Enough of ur copying and pasting jooor
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Reelax(m): 1:28pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Allah, Ar-rahman, Ar-raheem, Al-azeez, As-salaam, Al-malik, Al-jabar, Al-wadud, Al-lateef, Al-ghafar, Al-kabir, Al-hameed,Al-hakeem and many more
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 1:31pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Reelax: [color=#006600][/color]Al and Ar everywhere there. Whats the meaning of Al-
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by mileseer: 1:31pm On Sep 30, 2012|
I appeal that you stop copying & pasting on the thread. Create a friendly and welcoming environment for dialogue. Believe me most people wouldn't read a sentence of what you are posting. Allow those who are ready to impart some knowledge unto themselves to do the research themselves. I hope you take my appeal into consideration. Thank you.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 1:33pm On Sep 30, 2012|
rhymz, well, your posts are too long, i just skip them - sorry no offense. But i believe you should learn how to summarize stuffs.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Reelax(m): 1:38pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Al n Ar...articulating words in arabic
al-jabar (the powerful)
ar-rahman (the merciful)
al-wadud (the loving)....
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by vexx: 1:59pm On Sep 30, 2012|
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 2:00pm On Sep 30, 2012|
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 2:01pm On Sep 30, 2012|
rhymz i see you have finally lost whats left of your rabid mind.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Orikinla(m): 2:04pm On Sep 30, 2012|
The INFINITE RULER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.
MY FIRST LOVE AND MY LAST LOVE.
THE GOD OF MY EVERYTHING.
The other ones come in tongues only HIM can understand in our holy communion.
Heavenly lord your name is wonderful
Your name is excellent
Your name is beautiful
We worship you for you are mighty
You’ve got the whole world in your hand
You ‘ve got the whole world
In your hand
You ‘ve got the whole world
In your hand
You ‘ve got the whole world
In your hand
You ‘ve got the whole world
In your hand
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 2:07pm On Sep 30, 2012|
obadiah777: rhymz i see you have finally lost whats left of your rabid mind.
Don't mind the heathen, he is busy persecuting Yahweh; this free will too dey cause yawa
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by fm7070: 2:08pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Jehovah Efizzi, God of special effects, doing wonders, performing miracles.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by immapizzazz(m): 2:09pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Fountain of living Water, covenant keeping God, faithful God and God of host.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 2:10pm On Sep 30, 2012|
seriallink:LOL he needs to be subjected to the iron rod, 12 lashes of bulala that is
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Nobody: 2:14pm On Sep 30, 2012|
Nothing really special; Jehovah, the God of all possibilities, Mighty warrior, the Great One in battle.
|Re: What Special Name Do You Call God? by Lakayana: 2:15pm On Sep 30, 2012|
obadiah777: rhymz i see you have finally lost whats left of your rabid mind.When you say somethings is lost it means it was in existence before it got missing. How do you say a mind that has never been in existence is lost.
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 362