[Zergimmi,

quote]Great KFC, but as I said I disagree with yours and the concept of Protestantism, I respect yours and the views, but do not subscribe to them, The site does give me a better understanding of the protestant view, and I will read on as I have an enquiring mind, however I have heard much of this before from friends who mister in many protestant churches, and as I do with them I respectfully disagree

That's ok...we can agree to disagree. No problem!!

The site is a great one and one that I stumbled onto about a year ago from another blogger. I have throughly read him and believe he is speaking the truth.

As for the accusation of false religions, I again have difficulty in the concept of exclusion of prophets who may have been sent after Jesus Christ rose to the heavens. After all the bible was written long before Mohammed received his calling, so why should his reformist teachings be less relevant than say those of Martin Luther, having said this I do not agree with their representation of Christ,

Well as far as scripture is concerned I believe it's clear that Jesus would be the last one sent. We are told to beware of any false prophets that will come after. We are not to follow them. Now I realize other religions don't have that view but they are not using scripture to back it up. They usually have other books they use for this. Martin Luther, unlike Mohammed, was not a prophet but only a man who so happened to have the duty of being a priest in the CC.

KFC,

I too must respectfully disagree with you on your faith in biblical authorship.

The Council of Nicea was the first reformation of Christianity, it was very political, in a East v/s West theology, and the accepted text was basically pre-ordained by the Ceasar of the time ( I'll neglect recalling his name, but it was the leader of Rome, recently converted to Christianity, who commisioned the council )

What came out of this convocation was the origins of the split between Greek, Coptic, Gnostic, Maronites and Roman Catholics. Some even believe this divide fostered the birth of Islam.

In a nutshell, many of the recognized text by Eastern practitioners were deemed heresy, and many accepted text were edited, revised,retranslated, or abridged.

Some argue that these well meaning religious leaders were divinely inspired, thusly infalible, others point to a "politically correct" text acceptable to Roman rule.

Some thousand years later, King James had a problem with unruly peasants who had the gall to educate themselves and learn to read, so he commissions yet another translation of the Holy Scriptures...do you really think those scribes were divinely inspired, or motivated by their patron to produce a tome to quell the masses?

The same can be said over the history of the Torah, the Koran or any other historic religious text.....The germ of "truth" contained in them all is there is but one God, and beyond that is where we begin to differ in opinion.

The Catholic Church began to recognize this commonality and declared such in the Nostra Aetate ( I'd invite you to Google ) too bad this discovery didn't come about before those pesky Crusades.....

The Council of Nicea was the first reformation of Christianity, it was very political, in a East v/s West theology, and the accepted text was basically pre-ordained by the Ceasar of the time ( I'll neglect recalling his name, but it was the leader of Rome, recently converted to Christianity, who commisioned the council )

Are you talking about Constantine? He was a convert to Christianity and about 323 declared Christianity the state religion. I do believe the Christian churches as well as the pagan temples were blurred as one and right from the get go we had problems with theology. Basically crosses were put on pagan temples and they were deemed Christian.

Have you studied/read the bible for any length of time? Most that deny the truths therein have not even given it a look see. I believe and have said this before that we can be absoulutely assured that the bible we have in our hands today is the same scripture that Jesus read two thousand years ago (OT of course). We have more manuscriptual evidence for this than any other work of antiquity. The closest would be Homer's Illiad. Funny that never seems to be quesioned. And the manuscripts left behind for that book pale in comparison to what we have for scriptual evidence. In our possession today there are 5000 original copies. Nothing even comes close to this.

I believe the NT was throughly researched out and the canon was divinely put together. I am totally amazed when I read it how this cannot be something that was just thrown together. It fits together perfectly written by over 40 men over 1500 years living in 3 continents. Yet it reads as tho only one wrote it.

When a gnostic gospel is held next to the bible it doesn't even read the same. The gnostic gospels are not divinely inspired. They not only contradict the bible we have today but they contradict each other.

The deeper one digs into scripture the more one can totally appreciate that this is no ordinary book. I intend to blog on this soon. Stay tuned!!

What are the false Religions of the west? A list Please and according to Who.

What if a superteam of scientists armed with the latest technology proved beyond doubt that Jesus died on the cross, could prove medically that he was dead when taken off the cross, would in any case have chocked by the time he was wrapped in 100 pounds of myrrh and aloe when he was buried; could, based on solid historical sources, prove that after three days his grave was empty and that Jesus was back among the living; could psychologically prove that witnesses to this fact were not mentally impaired, could in other words establish the gospels as being scientifically and verifiably true? Would you call these scientists believers? You can only answer this question with "yes" if you think that christianity has anything to do with the language of science, which clearly -i hope- is not the case. Christianity tries to express the depth that is experienced in a certain way of living. So what Michael Baigent has done in this book, besides trying to cash in, is confusing mythical language with scientific language, resulting in pseudo-scientific dribble, the worst of both worlds.

Firstly - i realise that i'm coming to the discussion a while after it began but i'm from Australia and it may amuse you to know but the program that began the discussion does not air on australian tv until tomorrow night (that is the 25th of June 2006) so i realise it is unlikely my post will get read but hey i like to add my 2cents worth anyway...
To begin, although i was brought up a catholic i do not list myself under any real religious heading. i care about facts scientific and historical. it is my belief that Jesus was a revolutionist for his and our time and the only thing i care about are his teachings and morals (but am uninclined to believe that he was the son of god who rose from the dead after 3 days of death to ascend to heaven and save mankind). one of the main things that angers me - particularly about the topic of conversation and previous posts - is that many avid "christians" completely ignore the life and teachings of christ and focus only on his death and supposed resurrection. there is to much hypocrisy in the christian faiths, so much judgement on people who disagree with them. this is not what jesus was trying to teach, this is not why "he died for us".
I am wondering why the new gospels of judas are causing such consternation for some, it would be my conclusion that this gospel adds further proof to your beliefs, that it dispels what dan brown was trying to say. That Jesus had foreknowledge of what needed to happen to him to set in motion a chain of events to change the world and he had his "best friend" judas begin the "betrayel"
Further, i would like to add that in many of the previous posts there is a continual idea that books/films like dan browns etc. exist simply to hurt/challenge specific christian religions/beliefs. To begin with the life of christ does not belong solely to the christians. it is still a part, and a very fascinating part at that, of history. It is not the first section of history to be hollywoodised (and made in part historically inaccurate for "artistic lisence") and it will not be the last. films and documentaries on this subject matter are made for people interested in it - not to hurt people that are not.

To begin, although i was brought up a catholic i do not list myself under any real religious heading. i care about facts scientific and historical. it is my belief that Jesus was a revolutionist for his and our time and the only thing i care about are his teachings and morals (but am uninclined to believe that he was the son of god who rose from the dead after 3 days of death to ascend to heaven and save mankind).

I too grew up Catholic and care about the facts so I'm with you on this but have to ask a question here. If you care about his teachings then why don't you believe he rose from the dead? He taught that he would rise from the dead. He kept telling his disciples this would happen. He also said he was the son of God even saying he was God himself (John 8:58).

that many avid "christians" completely ignore the life and teachings of christ and focus only on his death and supposed resurrection. there is to much hypocrisy in the christian faiths, so much judgement on people who disagree with them. this is not what jesus was trying to teach, this is not why "he died for us".

well said. I agree. I think that the reason why the resurrection is so prominent is because without that there is no Christian faith. It all crumbles. The whole bible from the get go was that one would come (Jesus) and bring life to a dying world by dying in our place to take the judgment upon himself. He took the place of Adam who brought sin into the world. He offered us a way out and came to show it.

We really must not focus on men but on God. We should seek out those that are leading us to him not from him. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing and we need to be able to discern the difference and the only way we can do that is to know the Shepherd's voice and listen.