different faiths all lead to god?

Post Reply New Topic

QFT.

Most of these books were left out of the Bible for a variety of reasons. There was actually a list of standards that the books had to meet. (Which is why it's called the "Canon" of Scripture; canon meaning "a standard or criterion.") Some of those standards being: if it was known to have been written by an Apostle or an Apostle's scribe (i.e. Luke), if it was accepted by all or most of the churches as being authoritative, if it was internally consistent (i.e. containing no obvious inconsistencies or absurdities), if it was consistent with (didn't contradict) the rest of scripture.

Contrary to popular belief, the Council of Nicaea did not enforce a list of books on the Church, it rather gave assent to what the church itself had already decided, an "official stamp of approval." Virtually all of the canonical New Testament books were already accepted by a majority of churches throughout the world as being Scripture, and the gnostic/apocryphal books rejected, before the Council of Nicaea even convened. The only real debate were on a few of the minor epistles.

Interesting as hell, but seems to be
one of the WORST cases of deification
that I've seen. Funny though.

Indeed. Thomas was only a word meaning 'twin'.
The author of the Gospel of Thomas was reputedly
another Judas, who was also a disciple.

There are a group of religions called "the right hand path", all of them root from the same god. That doesnt mean there arent other religions that have nothing to do with this So literally all faiths cant be lead by or to the same god, only certain ones that correspond with eachother in a certain way.

With the infancy gospel I got confused with Timothy. That's why I said it was Thomas, afterward.

Don't forget, it took the Council of Nicaea at least another 15 years (up to about 327 CE) to make the final judgement on what was to be included. It also proves the political as well as religious motives for why certain books were declared 'canon', because as I've said before, had they used any or all of the other books, their intent would not have had the effect that it did, and said intent was to get the masses to believe that there was only one God, and one way to heaven. Didn't matter that the Romans all had to convert to Christianity either, so long as they could still have some sort of power over what was being said, it didn't bother them. The Romans, politically, could have thought there was more value in taking over Christianity by using and publishing the scriptures in their own way, thus making the Christians believe they weren't that bad afterall. As Baldrick would say, 'a cunning plan'. Doubt it, though. There was an agenda, and we may never know the intricacies of it, and that's why the book was severely edited. Besides, had they translated it properly, even the heavy editing may not have worked and we may have gotten the true meaning.

wasnt two of the oigional 4 books of the nt written by the same person? and were they actually writtine by matthew mark luke and john?

if they werent i dont know how you could consider them more of the truth than any of the books that were left out

Mark is suppose to be the first book written, and probably Mathew and Luke may have used it as a source material.

BUT some scholars place the gospel of Thomas as
the earliest.


As to a fun little game on the assembling of the
'True Faith':
http://www.gamecabinet.com/sumo/Issue16 ... Credo.html

Damn right.

RB, find a website where there is searchable text of the koran and search "friend", then do the same for the New Testatment. Then tell me you still think Christianity and Islam are compatible.

well, there is this supposed "Q" gospel that some say it might have been a source for Mark and the other two gospels as well, suggesting that the Thomas gospel was probably part of it, I think.

again i dont think muslims pray to be seen, or do it because there slaves. its just submission. im not an expert on islam but impretty shure they hold alot of the same values christains do.

doesnt jesus say if your eyes cause you to sin, to pluck it out? am i supose to litterly pluck out my eye if i sin? is jesus into selfmutalation?

i dont think so. same can be said for alot of the "violence" or hostility in islam, most muslims are probably not terrorist you know.

like what

Some moslems say there are similarities like "thou shalt not kill" and claims the Koran condemns killing "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice……."(17:33) http://www.submission.org/abortion.html

But this is bullshit and not what the Koran says, which actually is http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/k ... yte=429259 :




Those who disbelieve are Jews and Christians (some moslems try to says they are not)


Do a search on "kill" in the Koran and you will see lots of passages where it says killing is not only OK, but that it should be done without mercy.

Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 20 Aug 2007, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ok well im sure theres plenty of violence in the bible aswell. i cant be arsed to nitpick through it right now though whatabout stoning people? wasnt that popular in the old&new testement. i guess i see those three religons as pretty much identical. one really isnt more evil than the other, there all equally evil

Last edited by richardbenson on 20 Aug 2007, 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

not in the New (Christian) Testament. Jesus said to love your enemies and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The Koran is totally incompatible with that.

Maybe the difference is there are more hypocrites who call themselves Christian, but who don't act like Christians

hm ok. jesus said alot of things though. but i'll look into it