|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 22nd, 2005 11:21 AM | ||
| ziggytrix |
you aren't gonna do shit and you know it. fabulous like a month old carton of milk. |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2005 03:45 AM | ||
| imported_Hollycaust |
I come back 309835 days later and see all this shit about gnostic. fuck you. btw Im going to write a book and title it "The Holly Code". I know people will read it. I mean... why wouldnt they? I'm fucking fabulous. It will have a collection of my thoughts and my theory on Jesus being the Devil. It will be great, trust this. |
|
| Jul 11th, 2005 05:37 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
I hope that you have an anytime minutes program. |
|
| Jul 11th, 2005 03:27 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
|
|
| Jul 10th, 2005 01:39 PM | ||
| Helm | we've already been there | |
| Jul 10th, 2005 01:07 PM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 10th, 2005 12:22 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
That's pretty fucking stupid. Ooooh, the "Vatican", they speak Italian and have marble floors, there must be a conspiracy somewhere in there. There is no "original" copy of the bible. The OT was passed down by oral tradition for centuries leading up to their final transcription in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE, and towards the end of the first century CE they were revised by the Jewish people in Jerusalem (though it's an ongoing argument in Christianity whether the modern torah or the LXX has more relevance). As far as the New Testament goes, there was no original copy since every composite work within it was written centuries before St. Athanasius began the process of labelling them as canonical. By that time they had been circulating along with various apocryphal texts for centuries, and had been written down by countless scribes who liked them for whatever personal reason. The concept of having a united bible comprising the Old and New Testaments in their entirety didn't even invent itself until the early High Middle Ages, as prior the book-making process was so rediculously expensive that you'd have to be retarded to undertake such a project, since those wealthy enough to own that many pages of scripture had the patience and intelligence to deal with them in serial. As far as the idea of "hidden" books of the Bible go, most Christian theologies entail some primitive notion of metaphysical consequence (though not always so cogent) that basically says that God gave us the Bible in such a way that if some part were missing from it, it would de facto not really be scripture. You could have a book written in blood whose DNA matches that of Christ, and it wouldn't be part of the bible since had it been meant to be canon then God would have revealed it to us by now. It's contrary to common sense to posit a God as existing who inspired scripture yet was foiled by some cloak and dagger bullshit. |
|
| Jul 10th, 2005 09:32 AM | ||
| Dr.Merlin |
The origional books reside in rome in the vatican in environmentally stable glass cases. The origional bible actually had more prayers that would help with farming and other types of prayers that got results. it was like a really handy spiritual boy scout handbook. as the church re invented itself over and over again, some things were later thought of as heresy.?! understand that the Church was to Control the People at this time, it was through the ages of corrupt kings that the bible began to change, the church began to change. Sure I have questions, we all do. BUT, at the root of it all, There is an infinite creator who loves the creation infinitely. so, keep an open mind, study the ways of the Jedi, do what you will, and don't hurt anybody. Don't follow Leaders, and watch your parking meters. |
|
| Jul 8th, 2005 06:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I'd say that's rather impossible, kellychaos, since most bibles have been "interpreted" already. If there is a "primary source" i couldn't read it, anyhow, and I doubt there's a library that loans it out. P.S. the things i was sourcing were the primary source, i was linking to the actual books, or at least fragments of the books. |
|
| Jul 8th, 2005 06:23 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | Yeah, but last time God talked to me I was REALLY high, and I don't do that anymore. | |
| Jul 8th, 2005 05:06 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Second-hand sourcing!  Isn't it better to develop one's own opinion from the primary source? Too much is diluted in another's interpretation. |
|
| Jul 8th, 2005 01:12 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
No, it's something i study(more or less), with other things. When i found sources for it, though, I used yahoo-- but that's only because most of my books are in ebook or real book form which wouldn't help anybody online. Ididn't think you were having aproblem with me, I was just answering for the hell of it... i really don't think there's anywhere in the bible where they talk about lucifer falling. I know at one point Jesus mentions he "Saw him fall", but who knows what that means... i don't really read the bible, incidently. Most writings like that are kind of boring. I've been reading various copies of the tibetan book of the dead, and all the prayers and bullshit just make me want to burn the books. So irritating. I'll have to type one of the more annoying ones up soon... |
|
| Jul 8th, 2005 12:38 PM | ||
| swimini | kahl I wasnt taking issue with you here, the works you site are all very relevant, my problem is with the original thread starter who so briefly the describes the Bible as being split into just 'two' books. I am all for experimental thinking but if you are going to propose such notions you ought to have some knowledge of what you dealing with. Incidently kahl, how do you know so much about early christian writings? is this something you have studied or the mighty of power of google? | |
| Jul 8th, 2005 12:27 PM | ||
| Nom | it's Valentinus, and apocrypha, respectively | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 11:15 PM | ||
| kahljorn | There'svarious sources depending on what pointof view you'd like to take, I guess. Most of what i said was from gnostic sources, but from a more traditional point of view some people think the Angel's who were cast out of heaven and bred with human women to make nephilim in the book of enoch is the fall of lucifer. I think even within the church and educated folk there's a few different opinions on what exactly constitutes the fall of lucifer... don't forget, though, there's plenty of other books that aren't in the traditional bible. Like the Nag hammadhi writings, the writings of valentius, the dead sea scrolls, the pseudepigrapha and the apocyphra... a few of those were around even before jesus, and most of the others no more than 500 years after... | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 07:13 PM | ||
| swimini |
I have to jump on this this supposed theory is such drivel that it hardly merits a post, but I must say I was impressed to see people quoting form the Bible, you should know a source before you denounce it. Anyway i was wondering if anyone could point out where it describes in the Bible the fall of Satan. See in my Bible it starts with whole 'in the beginnnig thing' and Satan had already fallen by then. I think perhaps you are being inflluenced by later works such as Dante's Divine Comedy (1318) Milton's heroic 'Paradise Lost' (1667) which is largely responsible for the image of Lucifer/Satan as rebel angel we find so attractive today. Incidently I adore Paradise Lost and would reccomend anyone with an interest in the 'dark side' to read it, well at least books one and two anyway. |
|
| Jul 7th, 2005 06:04 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Dialetics isn't a word, it's dialectics. Also, it's existence, not existance. Geez, I will never adjust to people who spell existence wrong. Ireegardless, I'm a jackass. | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 04:55 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
P.S. Sorry, Ziggy. Perhaps my above repsponse will give you the closure on this topic that you so desire. P.S.S. Dialetics is the uber-form of passive aggressive behavior. Smartassimus maximus. I find it most entertaining. |
|
| Jul 7th, 2005 02:16 PM | ||
| executioneer |
i just had such high expectations cause it was a hollycaust thread is all 
|
|
| Jul 7th, 2005 01:10 PM | ||
| Chojin |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 7th, 2005 12:59 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
|
|
| Jul 7th, 2005 12:51 PM | ||
| Nom | Nevermind Kelly. There’s no reason to bore everyone. This is obviously not the place to have this conversation. Later. | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 04:06 AM | ||
| Helm | ok guys we got the ok from ant | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 01:15 AM | ||
| Ant10708 | I'm not. This forum(and sometimes movies and games) is the only forum I go to. Chojin is the one who finds my posts in threads discussing current events to be painfully unfunny. I never knew I was suppose to crack jokes in every thread just because its called Imockery. But let's not sidetrack this thread again with my cancer inducing posts. Continue the heated discussion at your own pleasure and risk. | |
| Jul 7th, 2005 12:47 AM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Aw shit, I just got the LCD seal of approval.  If you are decent at last minute cram-style scanning, you can pick some funny bits out of helm & khal's exchange, but really, this isnt the funnies page of the forum so why you bitchin? And Nom, don't take that as validation of your worthless infestation of this thread, just so there's no misunderstanding. Reading your words is like slow 
|
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
