"The Acts Of Peter" was tossed because of it's ties with the Gnostics, Peter was the corner stone of the Gnostics. The Gnostics were regarded from the formation of the catholic church as heretics for a) holding secret knowledge b) believing Jesus escaped the crucifixtion and c) believing Jesus as wholly divine as opposed to the then catholic belief of Jesus being equaly human and equaly divine. Interestingly enough, dispite many catholic and christian leaders claiming that Mohammed converted by the sword, Mohammed actualy gave the Gnostics their first taste of freedom;^]

Absolutely.

The message seems quite confusing.

What’s important?

To live as Jesus taught?

Or to accept that Jesus was slaughtered as a sacrificial lamb for our sins?

It seems to me that the second idea has overshadowed the first in Christianity to unprecedented proportions.

It seems to be more important to believe that Jesus was God than to actually give a hoot about what he taught.

In fact, the most vociferous proselytizers of the religion clearly spit in the face of what Jesus taught. They accuse people of being sinners based on their lifestyles and/or their beliefs. This is something that Jesus clearly taught not to do!!!


Jesus also taught to spread the word only to those who are interested and accepting of it.

So why should anyone believe people who behave so hypocritically whilst they preach morals to us and attempt to “prove” that Jesus was God? Both of these things are precisely what Jesus taught not to do!!!

Christianity can become a two-faced sword in the hands of a demon. When it is being used as an egotistical weapon to try to convince people that they are wrong and only the believer is right then it is clearly being used for demonic purposes of the ego.

If Christianity needs to be ‘proven’ to someone then it is an unworthy religion. If it cannot be presented to someone invitingly then it cannot be from God. God would never drive away those who genuinely seek spiritual enlightenment. Yet Christianity is doing just that to millions of people every day!

Why would God desire to drive away sincere individuals who are genuinely seeking his love?

This is why I am totally convinced that Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with God.

You can show me a myriad of technical proofs. I’ve already seen the proof that really counts. The religion drives away sincere people. Would God condone driving away sincere people?

Would God be stupid enough to put all his eggs in one basket?

I think not.

These are frailties of men, not of a God.

God is far more dynamic and versatile than the narrow-minded doctrine of Christianity can possibly embrace. Christianity would have us believe that they have God in a box. They even often act like they own him.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........god, this god, that god,....pick a god, swap a god, be a god, see a god.

Adamantly disagree....jealously guard your worth, take no prisoners, warrior your god to death, show your god, be a god, see a god.

Or just get on with it.

Jess...

Is you pickin' us?

Nah...... just stomping a foot...and pouting.

Put your trident away...

I am being good....

Promise...

As emotionally unattached as one can be...





What cannot be seen is called evanescent;
What cannot be heard is called rarefied;
What cannot be touched is called minute.

These three cannot be fathomed
And so they are confused and looked upon as one.

Its upper part is not dazzling;
Its lower part is not obscure.
Dimly visible, it cannot be named
And returns to that which is without substance.
This is called the shape that has no shape,
The image that is without substance.
This is called indistinct and shadowy.
Go up to it and you will not see its head;
Follow behind it and you will not see its rear.

Hold fast to the way of antiquity
In order to keep in control the realm of today.
The ability to know the beginning of antiquity
Is called the thread running through the way.

Turtlepoet78

Shalom

I just wondered if you knew that one of the biggest fights in the 2nd century was over whether the Revelation of John or Peter should be the Revelation that Yahshua gave to them... blessings...Miles

For myself, one of the most curious parts of the modern-day biblical account of Jesus lies in the crucifixion... witnessed by one of the disciples... Peter... whose account of the crucifixion was deemed heretical... WHY? Because it went against what 'they' deemed as acceptable... BUT he was the only one that the Bible claims witnessed it...

The notion of baptism is of John, and quite an extrapolation of Jewish belief...

It is clear that there is more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the 'evolution' of the gospels, to then question their authenticty...Is it not?

No not really. I can not find anything that contradicts itself. The torah explains much meaning. I am intersted in some of the other books.Justin marytr shows some insite in the 2nd century.

BIBLE

The Second Epistle of Peter (2 Peter 3:16) shows that the epistles of Paul were recognized as part of "Scripture" at the time when Peter wrote: "in all his epistles are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned ... wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures;" compare 2 Peter 3:2: "be mindful of the words ... spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior." Justin Martyr (Apology 1:66) states that "the memoirs of the apostles" were read side by side with the scriptures of the prophets. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the New Testament making up with the Old Testament "one knowledge." Tertullian terms them together "the whole instrument of both Testaments," "the complete-together Scripture." The Syrian version (Pe****to) at the close of the 2 nd century contains the New Testament with the Old Testament.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998, 2003 by Biblesoft)
Here a syrain version is being circulated and they definately were using and considered the scriptures as 1 in whole.

So which books made it in. I look at Yahweh harding Pharoah heart to set in force what Yahweh willed. I believe the same in the scriptures. Daniel said Knowledge would be increased. So very true. We can now search the scriptures and the individual is able who yearns for the truth can look through all scriptures with relevant promice that the meanings which he may look up in whatever language the original was in and see if he is reading scripture or traditions of the elders. As we see far to often.... Blessings of Shalom...Miles

Miles, the following excerpts are from a Christian website...


We do not know who wrote the "Gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are in the New Testament. When these books were written, it was a common practice for authors to attribute their writings to well-known persons to lend "authority" to the writings. Matthew and John were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Luke was a physician who accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys. Mark, who was also named John, was the son of a woman named Mary who had a house in Jerusalem. Mark, who was an acquaintance of the disciple Peter, also accompanied Paul and Barnabas on some of their missionary journeys.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke apparently wrote their books after 70 C.E. (Christian Era or Common Era) because all three books make reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 C.E. after the Jews revolted against the Romans beginning in 66 C.E. These books were written at a time of crisis in the Christian movement. Most of the earlier followers of Jesus were dead. Peter and Paul are believed to have died between 60 and 65 C.E. These early followers had expected Jesus to reappear on earth as the "messiah" during their lifetimes.

It appears that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their books between 70 C.E. and 80 C.E. These books were written at a time when some of the Christians had begun to wonder why Jesus had not returned as expected.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their books to reassure the Christians that Jesus was the messiah expected by the Jews, so the Christians should remain steadfast in their belief. By the time that John wrote his book (probably between 90 C.E. and 100 C.E.), all of the original followers of Jesus were probably dead, including the "beloved disciple" who apparently was a resource to the writer of John. This is implied in the closing chapter of John, where the writer states, "The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, (Jesus said) 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?' This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." The "I" refers to the writer of the book, and distinguishes the "writer" from the "disciple" who provided "his testimony" as a source of information to the writer.

As you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you should be aware that much of what is written was intended to convince readers about "who Jesus was." Matthew, Mark, and Luke intended to "prove" that Jesus was the "messiah" expected by the Jews. They used stories of "miracles" performed by Jesus as "signs" of his messiahship, and they quoted writings (taken out of context) from the Hebrew Bible to show that Jesus fulfilled alleged "prophecies" concerning the expected messiah. There is no need to believe that these "miracles" really happened or that these alleged "prophecies" related to Jesus because history has proved that Jesus was not the Jewish messiah. The miracle stories and the alleged prophecies have become irrelevant.

There has never been agreement on "who Jesus was," among New Testament writers, church councils, and theologians, and it is not likely that there ever will be agreement. Fortunately, from a Christian Deist viewpoint, the importance of Jesus is in his teachings. The "truths" that Jesus taught must stand (or fall) on their own individual merits. And you, the reader, must judge that for yourself.




>>>>>> What is your take on this Miles?<<<<<<<

Shalom


1st i do not know
where they are refering to that bthe disciples wrote about the destruction of the temple "past tence"

2nd.. I do not believe this writer knows the prophesies that were refered to. I have found all of them to be in context. I would like to know the specific passages.

3rd know one knows for sure whether signed or not where or who are any of the scribes who wrote the words down. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit did not guide thier hand.


4th few miracles are recorded considering who this man was/is. He then did not go to the rightous but to sinners to show mercy. His only mercy that i see he bestowed on the Religious Elite is his dieing words. The same as stephen did.

So with what you have from this web sites are speculations. In their writings even refering to (i) instead of the writers name is pretty far fetched. I would of thought if this writer could show what he is saying in this article he would of explained and shown these escecially the past tence destruction of the temple. If thier is more that you left out i would love to see it. i believe and my brethern that all knowledge comes from Yahweh. So no knowledge is to be discarded without proving it to ourselves.. May Yahweh Of Hosts Guide You...Shalom..Miles

Ummm... What about John? And what evidence is there that Peter witnessed the crucifixion?



It is not. There is no substancial proof to determine that the gospels have "evolved" in any way shape or form. Mere conjecture with subjective observations.

Creativesoul;

What is this website - merely claiming it is a Christian website without allowing us to check it out does nothing to support your referencing it. Not to say that it isn't - but we've no means of determining this for ourselves.

There is much more here, although this is just one site, I will look for the others while giving a chance to read this one:

http://www.onr.com/user/bejo/4gospels.htm

At the bottom of the page is a link to the 'home site'

Another very in depth site with a tremendous amount of information and links:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

This opinion was authored by an individual who through self admission - doubts the historical tennets of Christianity, and left the Baptist ministry to become a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church. He considers himself a "Christian Deist"
A borderline oxymoron. If this is your basis for authority, we are going to have lots of misunderstandings over semantics.

However - the information you will recieve from any pbs site is bias, and slanted. Their idea of Christina authority - is the findings of "The Jesus seminar". They consider Dan Brown a reliable spokesman for Christianity. You couldn't find a more secular viewpoint on Christianity if you tried.

I would suggest that you compare the findings you have found from these sites with similar topical references from Coral Ridge Ministries - and CRI (Christian Research institute) and see where the similarities lie - and the extreme differences. You will get a much better idea of the "accepted facts" about Christianity and the bible.

I think this is the big difference between the skeptics and the followers here. We skeptics doubt everything, even our own conclusions. So we would never think to go to the people or the book that are "in charge" so to speak. We already know what they are going to say. We have all been raised in Christian communities if not Christian families. We think you need to look at unbiased outside sources. People who do not believe in Christianity but do love the history of all religion would be a very good place to start. You followers, on the other hand will follow deeper in and listen to the people who back up what you believe. Its a difference that is incomprehensible.

Eljay:

As a result of the pursuit of gathering as much information as one can on subject matter, I gather... reading as I go, holding onto that which resonates...

without agenda Eljay...

I gather not for any other reason but to gather... and absorb...

Only after which can I then process what has been stored while being detached... emotionally detached from what I absorb...

It is only after one finds themself that one can detach from the bias of the worldly fingerprint that is placed on one throughout their life... exposure's agreements within one... through the fingerprint... incorruptably so...

The goal was never to dismiss the validity of Jesus... it is to share the validity of what the experience helped to transform within this meek and humble heart, by showing me to myself, thereby allowing a cleansing of the vessel...

Much of Christianity's modern teachings simply cover but a mere part, the 'rebirth'... after which, I feel takes too much responsibility away from one, promoting diversion and avoidance techniques, while promoting self-acceptance and forgetting in place of self-awareness and removing.

I assume responsibility for my own actions and deeds, and it has been proven to me that all who walk in peace, do so by walking in 'the way', which is what one finds within, regardless of means... it is within... and it is balanced...

i saw that video last night on u-tube about all the other little gods that had some similarities {supposedly} in their story, as those surrounding my Lord Jesus Christ ..

while it was interesting to see the correlations...

i left the clip thinking to myself...
yes, it is all very interesting...however...

in my belief and in my opinion
(& in the opinions & beliefs of so many people ,
who are also very highly intelligent ...

no one has made such a stir and has had such an effect
on all of humanity & on all of Creation as my Lord Jesus Christ...


so what if there are similarities ???
..
This Man Jesus who is God Incarnate outshines them all...

These other entities are not common household names ...

i never even heard of half or more of them...
not hugely significant

i haven't noticed any huge following
towards any one of those other
entities or non- entities

again, i have to emphasize that our entire time system..

our method of dating events all are based
on the estimated time of our Lord Jesus 's birth ...

it doesn't matter the exact day or month or year...
that to me is rather trivial ...

the fact remains the same ...
all time is determined by the birth of Christ...

no one else in the world can ever say that ...
i am not aware of any one else whose presence
is so monumental in its' effect on people
or in its significance as the life of Christ ...

The presence of the Lord Jesus
causes so many conversations
and so much of an effect on our lives...

and i cannot help but notice...
how the unbelievers seem to make it their life's goal
to try to disprove Christians...
so much time and energy spent on a topic they criticize
and denounce unto death it seems ,

but in my opinion,
if they were so sure of themselves and so happy in their existences,
they would not even be slightly concerned or interested
in what Christians have to say ...
and yet some seem to make it their complete
and total topic of focus...

and it is really quite obvious
that they are not one hundred percent convinced
as to their way of thinking ...
cause if they were,
they would not feel the need to go so out of their way
to try to downplay the significance of
and to try to lessen
the magnitude of our Lord Jesus the Christ

Jesus is the Only real important reason
for this beautiful Christmas season...

Hallelujah