Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - The Gospel of Thomas

Home » Forum » General Discussions » The Gospel of Thomas

Hello, guest

Name: bella • Title: The Gospel of Thomas • Date posted: 03/01/07 4:34

Q: This is a false connection that I've identified on this site listed under Holy Books. I have to say that this bothers me and I wish that whoever wrote this would reconsider. To say that this gospel was suppressed by christian authorities because of the status of "master" alloted to Mary Magdalene is just false. There is no status alloted to MM in this gospel, therefore it's not for this reason that the gospel has been suppressed. MM is mentioned in one out 114 sayings, the very saying that reveals the tension between her and Peter. It is also not for the reason that anyone thought that it was the son of Jesus that wrote this gospel: this is actually the very first time that this identity has been pegged on Thomas, which literally means twin. The fact that women were among his followers is nothing exclusive to Thomas, this is also evident in the canon. Having followed scholarly opinion on Thomas for years, I find these statements to be very disheartening in the sense that I am led to wonder what else has been distorted in this same manner all the while throwing reputable names like Elaine Pagels that are linked with gnosticism: a topic that has been sensationalized and in the public eye for a while now.

Name: SpiritWoman • Date: 03/02/07 16:01

A: Greetings bella,

Keep in mind that this is just theory, and in no way the exact truth as none of us will most likely ever know.

Building a case for theory of any kind is bound by evidence and in the Gospel of Thomas it is written that Peter surely had a jealous zeal against Mary and the effections Jesus had towards her. He also beleived that Women were not equal in the eyes of G_D to men. If you study ancient Hebrew, you will clearly see where the Feminine divine was driven out. Study the story of Bathsheba. Ask yourself why Bloodlines were so important to the Hebrew patriarchs through a pure race, but then changed to the seed of the forefathers. Did this take place because of Bathsheba?

If the forefathers of the church were not so intent on selling Jesus flesh as a product of G_D and Mary's fleshly prostitution also as an Evil or adverse abomination then the question of why the gospel of Thomas/Twin would not come to such controversy as to why it was not included in the cannon.

Especially when we all know that Thomas was also called by the forefathers "Doubting" as if to prove Peter being the most beloved and most righteous. Sounds alot like a smear campaign of Peter against Mary and Thomas. Being his ambitious status in the group.

If you really study the Cannon and the Nag and the Dead See scrolls you find that Peter has always been the Apostle that was most ambitious, most jealous and most doubting. He tried so hard in all the wrong ways to prove his status of devotion to Jesus only to be made an example of what was not correct action as Jesus is constantly correcting his mistakes.

Peter is never where he should be and is always being chastised by Jesus when he is.

In Native American lore they have a mythical Coyote that teaches the follies of acting against Creator. I consider Peter the Coyote in Biblical context. He is the example of what is not right, but loved and forgiven for his ignorance.

Now, where is Mary?

Annointing Mary, present at his side during Crucifixion, first to see Jesus Risen, messenger of His rising. Unafraid of being questioned or condemned she stood by humbly, as Jesus willed, and understood the Acts of Jesus and woshipped with all of her being. She believed!

In the gospel of MM she does not profess her status as favorite but it is professed by an witness(an apostle) to her obediance and Jesus retaliation. She is beloved and Peter has always been jealous which falls into charactor as he rivaled for power after Jesus death as well.

Which makes the case of MM very convincing.

Peace
SW

Name: bella • Date: 03/04/07 1:07

A: I am aware that tension between Peter and Thomas has been disclosed here and elsewhere. I am aware of the position of women at that time [and ironically even now] However, I am also very aware of not only what *is* in Thomas, and what is in Thomas and the reasoning posted on this site does not match up. If for instance, the Gospel of Mary was cited for the reasons given, then that would be a different story. What Thomas discloses that would get at church authority was first and foremost the idea that the hidden truth should be sought out *individually*, further, it does not support any need for an authoritative church. We know what churchdads have said, to paraphrase - when will the seeking cease? *AND* that they were very adamant about determining the truth for others. In any case, the case for MM *is* very convincing, in other texts out side of Thomas. This is my point of contention because what is said about Thomas is in actuality not true. What other info is veiled in this way as far as this discovery goes? That is my point. The Gnostics had a habit of singling out one individual and giving them an esteemed position. Thomas, Mary, Judas, James and yes, even Peter - check the Apocalypse of Peter for this. The Gnostics had zero issues with the feminine, quite the opposite, and neither do I: I am addressing the motivation for the way Thomas was presented on this site.

Name: wygantsh • Date: 03/04/07 11:13

A: Greetings bella;

There are many valid opinions regarding the Gospel of Thomas which are arrived at by the document being read NOT in a vacuum by itself, but rather as a part of a larger body of CORROBORATIVE stories, including the canon, upon which a reasonable theory and conclusion can be forensically drawn concerning Mary's relationship to Jesus.

For example Mary Magdalene's appearance at the foot of the cross and at the empty tomb, and her first conversation with Jesus after he rose from the dead give a VERY CLEAR indication that Mary was the most important person in Jesus's life from her to him and him to her. He loved her tremendously and she was his COMPANION as is stated in the Gospel of Philip.

This is a beautiful love story in the highest sense of love without delving into whether or not they had a physical relationship because she NEVER left his side and would have died for him.

The church supressed the Gospels of Philip and Thomas for a number of reasons however it is difficult to say as to WHICH of these reasons was the primary motive for burning or burying the original text. It is my belief that they were hidden or declared heresy for two reasons: HIDDEN because the church fathers felt that they were too difficult for the average reader to understand, secondly: HERESY; because church fathers felt that Philip's teaching that Mary the mother of Christ was not a virgin is opposed to the official doctrine that Jesus was conceived without an earthly father. Philip in his gospel quite pointedly refers to Mattews gospel as proof that Jesus would have never said: " My heavenly Father" is he had not been the physical off spring of his earthly father, Joseph. Philip goes on to say that Jesus would have simply said: "My father".

This of course is HUGE debate since it is difficult to UNDO a lie that has been told for 2000 years concerning Jesus's conception and birth. It is important to note that the Jews at the time believed that ALL children were the offspring of the holy spirit since they believed that the soul was created by God and the body was created by the parents. This belief is still held by Christians and JEws however it is difficult to get people to really think about it since they have a tendency to accept that Jesus's physical body was not made by Joseph's sperm.

I believe that the Church's doctrine in this matter is false and has led to idolatry of Jesus worshipping him as God, when in fact Jesus very clearly said that ONLY the Father knew the time of the end of the age in Mattew 24.

Jesus a Son of God however Moses taught that we are ALL sons of ELOHIM and offspring of the Divine. This does not diminish Jesus's office of Christ and savior or his miracles or his ressurection or his ascension. He is a savior and a messiah who has given hope and strength and courage to millions of souls however he considered himself a brother of Elijah and Moses when talking to them on Mt Tabor in Matthew 17 when he de-materialized his body and they discussed his pending arrest and the conspiracy of Caiaphas and Sanhedrin's charges of blashpemy.

Elijah was a very important person to Jesus and he revealed to the disciples, peter, james and john in that same passage that Jesus's cousin John the Baptist was the re-incarnation of Elijah.

Name: bella • Date: 03/05/07 2:42

A: There are many valid opinions re the Gospel of Thomas, however, the one presented on this site is not one of them. You see, in order for Thomas to be rejected because of Mary's master status in it, it actually has to present Mary as a master: which it does not, the only reference to Mary is saying 114. Now, if you are asking me to look to the Gospel of John to prove why Thomas was rejected - that does not fly. For that matter, perhaps the Gospel of John should have been rejected by the church instead of Thomas. There are no stories in Thomas. Thomas is written in a style of it's own, saying in no particular order without a narrative. I am not debating the status of Mary: I am well aware of it, what I am saying is that this master status is NOT defined in Thomas and for this reason Thomas was not rejected on account of something it in fact does not contain. My point is STILL: why is this false info on this site?

The church fathers did not feel these gnostic texts were too difficult for other to comprehend, in fact, writings against gnosticism reveal in detail and in lenghty volumes why the gnostics were a problem to the church. A note on this entire idolatry of Jesus: the only thing dangerous about it is that it places god on the outside instead of inside man. That has always been one of the most underlying differences between orthodoxy and gnosticism. It is still the biggest difference between Gnosticism and most isms out there.

Name: wygantsh • Date: 03/05/07 5:35

Name: bella • Date: 03/05/07 6:54

A: Dear bella: Mary Magdalene attainment of the title 'master' doesn't have to be written in a book or set of writings in order to be true. If there is no written confirmation of this it becomes a question of fact not a conclusion of law.

Sigh. I am more aware of that than you can possibly imagine, however, that is not my point. My point? What is stated on this website in regards to Thomas is false and is merely used to support the conclusion . If you want to point out MM's status, books like the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary and the Pistis Sophia *are* evidence of that. When I see blatant disinformation, it really makes the source not trustworthy.

Name: wygantsh • Date: 03/05/07 13:20

A: Dear bella: The whole point of the documentary isn't a commentary on the Gospel of Thomas or ANY other writings, it is the writing on the boxes found in the tomb. Miriamne e mara is not found on ANY other box out of ALL of the boxes dug up and THEREFORE the question of WHO is Miriamne e mara and WHY is her physical remains buried next to Jesus son of Joseph? Who was Jesus son of Joseph that would be buried next to Master-Teacher Mary who, by DNA evidence was NOT a sibling? These are compelling facts and questions that I believe are easy to answer WITHOUT a debate over the Gospel of Thomas or any other books concerning these individuals.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 14:11

A: Bella, I've yet to see a good reason for assuming that any Nag Hammadi text is actually useful for studying the first century; they are clearly of later composition and the few scholars I've read that have commented on their composition have indicated that they don't read like a translation (I don't read coptic so I am unfortunately limited to translations on that regard). Thomas is a document that is less useful than any of the others, however, since it is clearly a composite from different, competing schools of gnostic thought (the various teachers listed as primary is one evidence of this fact.

The Canonical gospels were written much closer to the time period (conservatives date the synoptic gospels to 50-60 AD; liberals to AD 80). The earliest date I've seen by a respectable source on these works are late second or early third century composition.

Name: wygantsh • Date: 03/05/07 15:51

A: DEAR KRS: You have an interesting point since it has been rather laborious for me to read through the Nag Hammadi library however, I really enjoy reading them since it is a hobby of mine to collect difficult and obscure texts that at one time or another were considered valuable.

One early judeo-christian book that I particularly like which was discovered in 1733 is the book of Enoch which is fascinating, I couldn't put it down when i first read it. There are some important correlating passages in this book that affirm several references in the NT and OT of the canon to 'tares', 'the wicked', 'giants', 'nephelim', which all seem to revolve around 2 forces arrayed against each other in a battle which began in heaven and then spilled into the earth and finally into hell and the upper parts of hell which Catholics call purgatory.

Those 2 opposing forces are the LORD's (YHVH) hosts against the apostate-fallen angels. Unfortunately man is in the middle and it is the fallen angels who interferred with Man's spiritual evolution and caused him to fall as is recounted in the story of the serpent (fallen angel) and Adam and Eve.

The book of Revelation clearly substantiates these facts in chapter 12:

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. "

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

Name: bella • Date: 03/05/07 23:31

A: Of course the point of this film isn't the Gospel of Thomas, I'm starting to wonder if anyone that has replied to me has actually read what I said which clearly isn't the case. If you find it quite alright for the makers of this film to fabricate this info on Thomas, I suppose you are not seeing what else they have fabricated to fit their conclusion. And incidentally, yes of course what is in these books matters: this is where the name connection came from. Doh.

Name: bella • Date: 03/05/07 23:34

A: Again, I do not care whether an NHL text is useful for studying anything: that is an entirely different debate which I do not care to have here. Nor do I care that some hypothesize that Thomas is Q. What I care about is the false description attached to Thomas. Now, let's talk about why then would a 4th century acts text be used as evidence for her name? Hmm? It is the only one that uses this form of the name, by volume and earlier dating, previous texts should be more relevant.

Name: robin • Date: 03/05/07 23:37

A: Actually there were like 77 books or some number like that left out of "The Bible"

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 0:11

A: Bella, if that is your point, you're right.

Robin, thats speculation, it is assumed by some people (not proven) that the gnostic texts should be considered a part of the Bible. There is a problem with that assumption, however. The gnostic texts usually cited are significantly later than the Canonical texts, and were written by a group that seems to have originated near the beginning of the second century, but didn't begin writing their gospels until nearly the beginning of the third. Whether it is the Bible or not is more likely related to your presuppositions than to any established facts.

Name: robin • Date: 03/06/07 1:19

A: It would still be interesting to read those books and get other peolple opinions, knowledge, etc of others who also knew him. I have read the parts of the Gospel of Judas and watched the show, it was very interesting.

Name: bella • Date: 03/06/07 3:55

A: Gnosticism did not come out of nowhere and appear in the 3rd century. That's a surface misconception. There were writings against gnostics by 180 AD, this is actually where the Gospel of Judas is mentioned. In these writings, repeatedly this "heresy" [which by the way means to make choice] is traced and pegged on Simon Magus, a contemporary of Jesus. We've all heard about Simon Magus. He is trully the one "heretic" that is a household name in exoteric christianity, unlike say Valentinius. Ah, the irony. In any case, most people that may be somewhat familiar with what gnosticism is do not know anything about Simon and his gnostic system, which is pretty darn like the ones that folks are familiar with. So, there's quite a bit to examine here. Unfortunately, the very christianity instituted by patriarchs centuries ago is the one that people tend to find comfortable, anything else seems to not sound right. Of course it doesn't, it's unfamiliar territory, it doesn't sound quite like the stories they have heard since childhood.

Name: kbob • Date: 03/07/07 3:30

A: KRS:

Gnositc texts and the Gnostic religion it's self goes back pre fist century. You argument that nothing was any sooner than than the second or third century is simply inaccurate. It is believed by some scholars that some of the Gnstic texts may be the oldest Christian texts in existance.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 4:20

A: Bella,
I understand the history on the point; I spent a lot of time on the gnostics in my Patristics class. Christian gnosticism goes back to near the second century (I've never said otherwise), the first reference to a definetively gnostic belief is 1 John, usually dated around AD 85, but most scholars don't date full fledged gnosticism until the early second century (this is one of the major issues in dealing with Bultmann's NT Theology, so I spent some time on it). A few scholars still accept Simon Magnus as the father of gnosticism, though this might have something to do with the Ebionite tendency to discussing Paul under the ruberic of Simon. A few see it as a sect of Ebionites, but I think the Ebionite connection to gnosticism probably came later. My own theory about Christian Gnosticism is that it arose when the gospel was first preached in a city such as Alexandria or Athens, where Platonic thought was fairly well ingrained.

I know the history, but on this site, I find it best to give the short version at times, most people can't work through it otherwise.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 4:38

A: Kbob,

When I refer to gnosticism, I'm referring to Christian gnosticism, its a tendency with Christian scholars to describe Christian gnosticism without the adjective, because thats the only type that really concerns us. Non-Christian Gnosticism seems to go back to the second century BC, and there are a few documents that were found at Nag Hammadi that do seem to represent this type of gnosticism, and may be older than the New Testament.

As for scholars arguing that the gnostic texts being the oldest, this is based on some pretty strained arguments and almost every scholar has rejected those ideas. One problem with this is that the earliest Christian gnostics seem to have used the books we recognize as the cannonical New Testament (while we don't have those documents, we have quite a few comments on their use of the canonical gospels in the fathers).

A second problem is that there isn't any solid evidence for them in the Pauline Epistles. The first book of the New Testament (the Epistle of James) was probably written in the early forties, Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians and Romans were all written by AD 60, and there isn't any reference to anything that is clearly gnostic. There are some elements that a few scholars have tried to argue are gnostic traits, but the problem is that all of these traits the gnostics share in common with the Ebionites, a sect that developed from a group that we know Paul dealt with, and several of those texts have references that make it far more likely it is this group (commonly referenced by commentators as Judaizers) in mind. Having studied Paul for more than fifteen years now, I can say without a doubt, if Paul knew about gnosticism, he would written about it, and he would deal with those definetively gnostic elements.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 4:40

A: Bella,

By the way, the only thing the Nag Hammadi texts have really proved is that the Ireneaus, et.al. have dealt with them accurately. Just food for thought in evaluating the gospel according to Judas.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 4:49

A: Bella,

Double checked your post, and your off on the origin of the word heresy. It comes from Herizw, to quarrel, but in its noun form it refers to someone who causes divisions or a schismatic, this latter form, someone who creates a schism or a sect is what led to the specialized use of the term by Christians.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 4:53

A: Wyngetsh

Enoch is an interesting work, but its a little harder to work with than a lot of the later Jewish Apocrypha, and because it appears to be a composite document. Several sections of the work (at least in the form we have found it) are fairly contradictory to one another - I've read it, but I would suggest its real value would be in understanding some of the theology of Jewish mystics during the intertestamental period.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 5:09

A: Bella, I re-read your original post (the first time I read it, I went through the threads and got distracted, the second time I did't go to the top). Its possible that they are mixing up the gospel of Thomas with the gospel of Mary Magdalene - an early to mid second century gnostic gospel. Unfortunately, I've noticed that a lot of these flash in the pan projects tend to get some of these elements mixed up. (If I recall correctly, the Da Vinchi code confused the Nag Hammadi texts with the Qumran texts!)

Name: Red • Date: 03/07/07 6:26

A: What was the reason it was suppressed?

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 8:48

A: Red, I'm not sure what your referring to precisely (Enoch, Thomas, etc). My own area is Theology and New Testament, so my area of expertise with Christian history is with the first three or four centuries. Within this time period, you really don't have a supression of these documents so much as a series of warnings to Christians not to trust the gnostic documents. Gnostics in orthodox churches would be excommunicated, but considering that gnostics tended to form their own communities and churches, this wasn't as serious as it would have been in other time periods. In a lot of ways, the gnostic, and what we might call the more historic orthodox party didn't really interact all that much.

You need to remember that we have warnings about changing the doctrines of the Christian faith from the very beginning - Paul addresses doctrinal variation in the most severe of terms throughout the New Testament, and took pains to prevent others from forging letters in his name. Since the gnostic's doctrine didn't measure up to the doctrine that had previously been delivered from the eyewitnesses of the first century, they were simply considered outsiders trying to pervert the Church.

It is accurate to say these works were not accepted as canon, however. The canon debates are a very long topic, and I'd rather not go over all the details, so I'm going to really skim. The theological left has a very different view from what I'm stating here (though it should be noted their view is as biased as mine is, since they have their own set of assumptions and conclusions about the New Testament works that are influencing their thinking). I would argue that the canonization process is not so much one of choosing which books are authorotative, since only a very few books were actually questioned, and for the most part, they canonized the works most often cited by the earliest fathers. I would argue that the development of the canon is a matter of moving from an informal canon to a more formal "list" approach. I say that because the second century fathers quote copiously from the New Testament, and treat it as authoritative from the beginning. As new books came out, and pseudonymous works began to circulate the need for a more formal list became necessary, so they began to examine the books they had been using all along and looking for the details that made them authoritative, and these details became the benchmarks.

Christian gnosticism, for the most part, died of its own accord before the end of the Roman persecution, and since the rest of the church didn't use their works, they weren't being copied. Some were undoubtedly destroyed later in the fifth century, but I don't think the Church would have even known where to find them.

Name: SpiritWoman • Date: 03/07/07 21:02

A: KRS,

When you state Authoritative, by whom? G_D?

Keep in mind that the Christian religion we westerners know is a direct influence of Paul's teachings(not an original apostle), but James (the Brother of Jesus a more authentic charactor if you will, also built a church) where is his teachings in all this?

This some how smacks people right in the face as "Man Made" or "Minipulated" wouldn't you say? Or do you always regard others opinions and laws as the only true way to follow.

I find it amusing that One would blindly agree to one set of dogma and completely disregard another without cause.

So goes the Left and the Right theological perspective.

Funny thing is most start out being taught the Right perspective and end up leaning way to far to the left after the experience.

Thank The Creator thier is still middle ground and intellectuals around to explore it.

Peace.
SW

Name: lady andromeda • Date: 03/07/07 23:14

A: It is believed that Simon Magus as well as Dositheus may have inherited John the Baptists philosophy. I STRONGLY encourage everyone interested to research the MANDAEANS. They are Gnostics and they have survived since biblical times. There is a GREAT deal of info in their books concerning John the Baptist, Jesus, and a Miryai who some believe to have *possibly* been Mary Magdalene. It CERTAINLY puts a different light on what I thought I knew about Christianity. It is also believed that the Knights Templar were EXPOSED to their beliefs when in the East during the Crusades. Which might explain some things about them and what happened to them. Also, I find it very interesting that the Herod household was exiled to Gaul, Mary Magdalene was believed to have gone there, the Cathars were EXTERMINATED there for their beliefs, and lo and behold the whole RENNES-LE-CHATEAU thing there as well. hhhhhmmmm. Just curious.

Name: Red • Date: 03/07/07 23:33

A: Very intresing indeed.......

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 6:30

A: I've read up on the Mandeans, thanks, I wasn't persuaded.

Spiritwoman,

Paul is pretty early, and in Galatians 2 (written either in AD 49, or 53-56) he tells us that James, Peter, and John accepted him, so we must either assume that its true or he lied. As to noting left or right, presuppositions do influence conclusions, I acknowledge that. However, I try to be objective by providing both sets of conclusions, its shorter than typing the case I make for dating the gospels out.

I'm not merely going what others have said, I'm a New Testament scholar in my own right, I've gone over the evidence for myself, thank you. As for your worldview, your welcome to believe what you want - I believe that God gave man a free-will; but since Christianity isn't a subjectivist system, I can't use your ideas and still be epistemologically consistent.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 6:33

A: As for the Cathars, I'm not sure that they were exterminated for their beliefs. I've done a little digging (though not as much as I would like), and it seems to me that they were eliminated for the usual reasons people go to war; religion was just a cloak to try to justify the attempt. Actually, that seems to be the case with most of the crusades that took place in Europe.

Name: lady andromeda • Date: 03/08/07 7:34

A: KRS, What do you mean you weren't persuaded by the Mandaean material? Be abit more specific.

How about the Nasoreans/Elkasaites/Rechabites/Ebionites and several other early sects during Christianity's birth. Do you think that they were *hatched on a hot rock*? The Nasoreans have been theorized as having roots back to Sampson in the old testament and Samuel. Do you remember who they were? Jesus was a Nazarean alright. The same as James his brother and John the Baptist. NOT FROM NAZARETH as some think. Anyway, Mandaeanism is not something to be casually dismissed unless by someone who is quite incapable of grasping the antiquity of their belief system. That wouldn't be you would it KRS? Their books have been documented back to the 2nd century. Some scholars believe they have been around much longer than even that.
Cathars were accused of *spreading a heretical virus* Of course they had land and wealth to be had but just like the Templars they ALSO had that damned *heretical virus*.

Name: lady andromeda • Date: 03/08/07 7:44

A: KRS, I don't believe that James DID accept Paul wholeheartedly. I also believe that Paul resented Jame's authority in Jerusalem. I have even read that Paul may have had something to do with a physical attack on James in Jerusalem.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 8:02

A: No, I don't think they were hatched out of the rock, but I think most were derivatives of orthodox Christianity, early derivatives, but derivatives nonetheless. Given the early date for the orthodox documents and the fact that only a few of the gnostic documents can be dated as early, and given the hellenistic world's tendency towards syncretism, and given the orthodox party's constant warnings about not changing the doctrines, and given that this begins within 20 years of the death of Christ (when, due to the slower speed of communications, the growth of urban legends would be slower than it is today), then it seems far easier to accept that the gnostics, etc., developed from the orthodox party, rather than the opposite.

Actually, the references on the site are a bit off as to the Nazarenes - its a general term that seems to have been applied to Jewish Christians in general (at least in the earliest records) though later scholars (such as Jerome) seem to have used the term almost exclusively for the Ebionites; of course, after Christians were kicked out of the synagogues, the Jewish branch of the orthodox party would logically have melded with the gentile branch.

The Ebionites is technically a second century sect - but I've never really liked the way scholars define them, its not precisely accurate. There is a group that Paul addresses in Galatians ande elsewhere that most scholars presume to be the theological forebearers fo the Ebionites, and they are called the Judaizers because they believed that gentile Christians needed to be made to live under the law. After the council of Jerusalem (AD 49), when the council decided that gentile Christians were not to be circumcised, the relationship of the Judaizers with the rest of the Church would become strained, in the least, and this seems to be the origin of the Ebionites. I tend to use the term Judaizers interchangably with the term proto-Ebionite.

We really don't know the complete origin of the gnostics, but I find that the dualism of the gnostics is far closer to platonism than any of the other sources, though they seem to have borrowed from everywhere, so the gnostics might be all of the above.

I think most of the other sects we identify as early divergences may have derived from some of the mysterious doctrinal deviations that Paul deals with that don't match groups known today. The only hint in the NT of the Mandeans are a few men who Paul met who were baptized into the Church having only known John's baptism. Could some of John's followers have evolved into the Mandeans? Possibly. Considering the relative lateness of their scriptures, though, its hard to know how close they actually are.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 8:10

A: Lady Andromeda,

Your welcome to believe this, if you wish to believe that Paul was a liar, I won't convince you otherwise. However, there really isn't any evidence to support the position; your basing it in your logical development. Problem is, you need some kind of corroborating evidence for it stand up. One big problem is thinking he was involved in the death of James, however. Paul didn't have the clout with authorities by this point in time to pull the thing off, and was on the other side of the world. If this is some other attack on James than his stoning, there is no source for this.

FYI; when dealing with canonical issues, second century is considered late.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 8:15

A: As for the Cathars, comparing them to the Templars is a problem, because the case for the Templars involvement in the mysteries is pretty low. Considering that the Pope of the time secretly absolved them of heresy, and the king who ordered the raid owed them a lot of money . . . I think we have the same thing here as well.

Remember, its feudalism. If you want to raise a strong army, you need your lords to bring more than their minimum military obligations. Telling them you want to seize some land, of which they may not get all that much may not elicit much excitement. Get the Pope to offer an indulgence on the other hand . . .

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 8:17

A: One other thing on the Mandeans. My own take on the origins of the gnostics (syncretic development from Christianity and platonic gnostic sects) is similar to another view I have seen (Christianity and Mandeanism). However, I tend to go with the Greek view instead, because the Gnostics dualism seems to match them a bit better.

Name: lady andromeda • Date: 03/08/07 8:29

A: KRS, What do you make then of the old testament material on the Nazoreans (Sampson, and Samuel)? I believe they go back much further than you mentioned.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 8:50

A: The Nazarenes of the old Testament aren't actually a sect, its a reference to someone who took a Nazarite vow, which was sometimes life long, and sometimes wasn't. It was sort of like a vow of aestheiticism - they vowed not to touch a dead body, not to cut their hair and not to drink wine. In some cases it was merely an act of worship. Paul is referenced to shaving his head after a vow in Acts, and that is an example of the latter type.

Name: lady andromeda • Date: 03/08/07 9:27

A: KRS, That's right. Only it appears that several biblical people subscribed to THAT philosophy: SAMSON, SAMUEL, JOHN THE BAPTIST, JAMES (brother of Jesus) and JESUS. I believe Paul may have taken a limited vow but the others were *Holy in their mother's womb* meaning a life-long vow. It is currently thought that the Mandaeans may have been a descendant sect from the Nazoreans. Interestingly, in the Mandaean material there is alot of info on a woman called MIRYAI who I believe may *possibly* have been MARY MAGDALENE. She is written of in the Book of John (the Baptist). In that material she is considered a priestess or teacher.
Also in The Refutation of All Heresies by HIPPOLYTUS (book v section 2) it says:
"These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naasene) asserts JAMES the brother of The LORD handed down to MARIAMNE".

So, there is another instance where someone (a founding Church Father Hippolytus) has referred to a MARIAMNE. This even connects her to the name of JAMES the brother of THE LORD!

Name: SpiritWoman • Date: 03/08/07 14:11

A: Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 1:30
A: I've read up on the Mandeans, thanks, I wasn't persuaded.

Spiritwoman,

Paul is pretty early, and in Galatians 2 (written either in AD 49, or 53-56) he tells us that James, Peter, and John accepted him, so we must either assume that its true or he lied. As to noting left or right, presuppositions do influence conclusions, I acknowledge that. However, I try to be objective by providing both sets of conclusions, its shorter than typing the case I make for dating the gospels out.

I'm not merely going what others have said, I'm a New Testament scholar in my own right, I've gone over the evidence for myself, thank you. As for your worldview, your welcome to believe what you want - I believe that God gave man a free-will; but since Christianity isn't a subjectivist system, I can't use your ideas and still be epistemologically consistent.

Greetings KRS,

In reply, Paul was indeed fairly separated geographically and culterally from his claimed partners in spreading the WORD, so his stating his acceptance would indeed be questionable.

Just because I say I'm a Christian doesn't mean I am. Try telling a Roman Catholic priest your a christian while standing in line during communion. You better be a Catholic christian if you wish to receive the Wafer of Christ.

See the logic? The Institution tipped the scale of truth by excluding those who could possibly refute Paul's claim by excluding the universal aspect of Christs teachings bottom line.

I would more argue that James writings and history are not included in the Cannon, nor is mentioned in any Christian teachings other than to endorse Paul as an Apostle of which is to say in and of itself misleading to followers who assume he was one of the original's based on what they are told and to lazy to actually find out for themselves.

So, that being said, and being that I am not Dogged by Learned Institutions that apply a certain Curriculum/Schism to apply subliminal messages to my subconscience........I agree, God did give "Humans" a free will, and it's up to the Human to explore truths in thier own right, or remain ignorant or hypnotized and let the Institution/Schism dictate what thier consciense drives to form what is percieved as truth without exploring alternatives.

Thier are many scholars, and many theologians and the world was flat, now it's round.

Peace
SW

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 15:39

A: Yeah, note the phrase as is supposed - and remember Hypollitus is fairly late - so its more likely (to my mind) that this traditional info given later. Look, this is where it comes down with the origins, either Paul lied when he stated what his relationship was to the other apostles (by the way, Spiritwoman, Paul ministered everywhere - so he wasn't always that far geographically), or that he is telling us the truth. I've studied Paul for a long time, and I've read through a lot of these gnostic works. It also requires one to assume that the author of Acts got a lot of small details (such as obscure titles of city rulers) right, details archeologists have dug up and compared to the work and marveled at the accuracy, but then assume that he got the big stuff wrong (like what happened at the council of Jerusalem). Guys who make up the big stuff, don't tend to sweat the small stuff to often. Again, the process of traditionalization doesn't move all that quickly. Your position requires us to assume that this process happened at lightspeed, remember Paul is writing to the Galatians as early as AD49, to the Thessalonians in 50-51 and to both the Corinthians and Romans before 60 (and probably before AD 57). Finally, I've read a lot about the gnostics; I know there are a lot of debates (Including debates about whether the groups I noted as pre-Christian gnostic groups should be identified as gnostic groups or not). I also have found that a lot of the works that support your works are built on such late testimony, and the arguments in favor of the view requires a great deal of special pleading, and cherry picking. If you want to know why scholars have largely set the gnostic origin theory start with Stephen Neill's The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, pages 182-197. He's a theological leftist, but he's a true critic and pretty good at presenting the strengths and weaknesses of various positions.

Incidentally, the one thing the Nag Hammadi texts has proven is that the fathers quoted the gnostics accurately. It seems to me, you've given their evidence, that the gnostics were the agents of change not the older form of Christianity far to little weight on that basis.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 15:41

A: As to the rest, We're moving in circles, unless you have something substantially new, I'll bid you adieu.

Name: SpiritWoman • Date: 03/09/07 15:26

A: Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 10:39
A: Yeah, note the phrase as is supposed - and remember Hypollitus is fairly late - so its more likely (to my mind) that this traditional info given later. Look, this is where it comes down with the origins, either Paul lied when he stated what his relationship was to the other apostles (by the way, Spiritwoman, Paul ministered everywhere - so he wasn't always that far geographically), or that he is telling us the truth. I've studied Paul for a long time, and I've read through a lot of these gnostic works. It also requires one to assume that the author of Acts got a lot of small details (such as obscure titles of city rulers) right, details archeologists have dug up and compared to the work and marveled at the accuracy, but then assume that he got the big stuff wrong (like what happened at the council of Jerusalem). Guys who make up the big stuff, don't tend to sweat the small stuff to often. Again, the process of traditionalization doesn't move all that quickly. Your position requires us to assume that this process happened at lightspeed, remember Paul is writing to the Galatians as early as AD49, to the Thessalonians in 50-51 and to both the Corinthians and Romans before 60 (and probably before AD 57). Finally, I've read a lot about the gnostics; I know there are a lot of debates (Including debates about whether the groups I noted as pre-Christian gnostic groups should be identified as gnostic groups or not). I also have found that a lot of the works that support your works are built on such late testimony, and the arguments in favor of the view requires a great deal of special pleading, and cherry picking. If you want to know why scholars have largely set the gnostic origin theory start with Stephen Neill's The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, pages 182-197. He's a theological leftist, but he's a true critic and pretty good at presenting the strengths and weaknesses of various positions.

Incidentally, the one thing the Nag Hammadi texts has proven is that the fathers quoted the gnostics accurately. It seems to me, you've given their evidence, that the gnostics were the agents of change not the older form of Christianity far to little weight on that basis.

Greetings KRS,

Now I like this post much better than your last one.

I admit my knowledge on dating the Gnostics is very limited. I too, do not believe all sects of early christianity should be attributed to the gnostics in a genralized manner, or let's just say one set of dogma.

My only sensitivity to this subject rises out of the very fact that we have no wide range of the original Twelve writings included in the cannon, although we have many documents attributed to them. Now dating them or opinions on dating them would be interesting to me. And if they are dated older or very close to the cannon, then why were they not included? What specific reason?

Why only the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and endless reference and letters attributed to Paul?

Why was only The Letter of James included in the cannon, and constantly debated as to it's authenticity?

Why Did Luther discount it's usefulness and disregard it's elevation of Works attributed to James over justification of Faith alone as attributed to Paul's epistles?

In my opinion as Peter being the ROCK of the Gentile Christian church and in Acts the author describes him much differently then what Peter is described in the Gospels and the non-cannonical books are more attunes in charactoristic style of personality.

Peter is constantly being charactorized by Jesus as one with little faith in the gospels and is either being jealous or overzealous and always Jesus corrects his misguided attitudes and deeds and in non-cannonical texts this theme carries that same tradition only it is the apostles or relatives of Jesus correcting him likewise. As Jesus claimed to make Simon/Peter his Rock literally interpreted is convenient for the Church institutionalizing it's theology, but in a truer sense Jesus was describing His power to Awaken his Word in persons such as he.

And most of us here know Paul's history.

From a mythological standpoint, both Peter and Paul are used as charactoristic examples of Jesus forgiving and nurturing nature, but most definitely not as leadership material in the sense they were not perfected in Spirit from the his introduction.

Much like the Coyote and the Spider mythology of the Native Americans.

The Acts of Phillip describes Phillips mistake in using the powers of Glory against the mass, directly against Jesus teaching "Works". Why was this not included in the cannon?

In no way do I disclaim Peter or Paul's history in relation to Christianity, but for evidentail purposes I find that the most powerful cannonical writings are attributed to the least attuned or most doubtful of the twelve.

This most varibaly is seen in acts as almost being the reason for it's being penned and included as affirmation of these men in the cannon.

As Luke is attributed to Acts authorship, and Luke being a follower of Paul, so he would include the sceptics awakenings or experience. But why would the church institution weigh these two leadership roles higher then the rest?

Or at least deviate from as did Luther?

In my opinion this denies actual truths and leaves huge openings in interpreting Jesus life, works, and words.

Just a thought.

Peace
SW

Name: roy • Date: 04/02/07 23:32

A: Whoever interested true journey of faith last 2000 years please consider the following article:
Qoran witnesses same doctrine with old and new testament, pointing to the same God sent them.

Mohammad’s teaching were unlike any other books, memorized by hundreds of muslims systematicaly and diligently. The simple words of him Hadiths were forbidden to be written or recorded in order prevent mess up with revelations.

Records of bible were not kept in order and deliberately distorted. However muslims believe the original is kept by God and it is true that it was given to Jesus.

There are too many proofs that Bible was edited, added many false claims, manupulated according to politics, finally diverted from its true path. Muslims hadiths books were similar in their destiny. They were overly biased, lies alleged to Mohammad (sas) added, religion overburdened with unnecessary hardships, bigotry, bidat (added ruling, principles).

They took their toll to the extent that, they claimed Mohammad, as the imam of all prophets, for whom the earth was created for. In one hadith they claim he went several times between God and Moses to reduce repetition of prayer in a day from 50 times down to five times. It was claimed on some occasions inspired by christian faith, God had shank (God forbid! Never).

Early Christian belief was too much different than todays versions. I put down the historic events and different sects of Christians, some still in effect today, which have been very close to Muslim version of religion. It shows only one truth that God has sent several prophets, prescribing same religion at basic concepts ,ie.. pray one God only, give charity, not kill or commit adultry, etc.. I hope this will give a secular insight to our beliefs.

Roy’s script: Please bear in mind that the notes were written according to Biblical names, here Jesus was referred as son instead of prophet, many times. (it is misleading attribute as the true meaning should be God slave and Messenger according to muslim faith.)

NONTRINITARIANISM

Nontrinitarianism is any of various Christian beliefs that reject the doctrine that God is three distinct persons in one being, (the Trinity).

The notion of the Trinity is not of particular importance to most nontrinitarians. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves affirmatively by the term, although some nontrinitarian groups such as the Unitarians have adopted a name that bespeaks of their belief in God as subsisting in a theological or cosmic unity. Modern nontrinitarian groups views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Various nontrinitarian views, such as Arianism, existed alongside what is now considered mainstream Christianity before the Trinity was formally defined as doctrine in AD 325. Nontrinitarianism was very rare for hundreds of years. It surfaced again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars and in the Enlightenment and Restorationism.

Forms of Nontrinitarianism
ALL NONTRINITARIANS ARGUE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARLIEST FORM OF THE CHURCH WAS NOT TRINITARIAN. Typically, nontrinitarians explain that the Church was altered as a direct and indirect consequence of the edicts of Constantine the Great, which resulted in toleration of the Christian religion, and the eventual adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Because it was at this time of a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically find the development of the doctrine questionable. It is in this light that the Nicene Creed is seen by nontrinitarians as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of Church to State interests by the leaders of Catholic Church, so that the Church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.
Although Nontrinitarian beliefs of a great variety continued to multiply, and among some people (such as the Lombards in the West) it was dominant for hundreds of years afterward, the Trinitarians now had the immense power of the Empire behind them. NONTRINITARIANS TYPICALLY ARGUE THAT THE PRIMITIVE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH WERE SYSTEMATICALLY SUPPRESSED (EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH), AND THAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD, PERHAPS ALSO INCLUDING THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WAS ALTERED AS A CONSEQUENCE.
Nontrinitarian followers of Jesus fall into roughly four different groups.
• Some believe that Jesus is not God, instead believing that he was a messenger from God, or Prophet, or the perfect created human. This is the view espoused by modern day Unitarianism and ancient sects such as the Ebionites. A specific form of Nontrinitarianism is Arianism, which had become the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire. Arianism taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but held that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father. However, Arians did not consider worship of Jesus as wrong.[citation needed] Another early form of Nontrinarianism was Monarchianism.
• Others believe that the one God who revealed himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is a doctrine known originally as Sabellianism or modalism, although it is explained somewhat differently in the churches which hold these beliefs today. Examples of such churches today are Oneness Pentecostals and the New Church.
• Several denominations within Mormonism (including the largest, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) accept the divinity of Jesus, but believe the three persons of the Trinity to be separate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (D&C 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
• Several denominations within the Sabbatarian Church of God and certain groups within Seventh-day Adventism accept the divinity of the Father and Jesus the Son, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a Being. The Living Church of God, for example, teaches, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe". This view has historically been termed Semi-Arianism or Binitarianism.

kingdomready.org/topics/god.php
[ GOD IS 1 NOT 3 ]

Only the Father, Yahweh, is God. Jesus is the Son of God, His only begotten Son, the Messiah. The Bible emphatically and repeatedly sets forth Yahweh's supremacy and exclusivity. There are no other gods besides Him. God is all powerful, everywhere present, immortal, invisible, and all knowing. He did not become a man, His word (reason, intent, plan, self-expression) did. Jesus is the perfect human who always did what God wanted done and always spoke what God wanted said. In fact, it was Jesus who said that the Father is the only one who is truly God (John 17.3). Paul likewise confessed belief in a single deity when he said, "Yet, for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Corinthians 8.6). Below are resources that aim to describe what the Bible teaches not the philosophies of men.

Origins and basis for Nontrinitarianism
Nontrinitarians claim the roots of their position go back farther than those of their counterpart Trinitarians. The biblical basis for each side of the issue is debated chiefly on the question of the divinity of Jesus. Nontrinitarians note that in deference to God, Jesus rejected even being called "good", that he disavowed omniscience as the Son,[1] and that he referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God", and that he said "the Father is the only true God." Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "The most important one (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Siding with nontrinitarians, scholars investigating the historical Jesus often assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar). Jesus Seminar is a research team of about 135 New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1][2] The seminar's purpose is to use historical methods to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done. In addition, the seminar popularizes research into the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament plus the Gospel of Thomas to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993),[3] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[4] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[5] They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
The text of the Nicene Creed and the Trinity state that the three are "coequal". This is the term actually used in the Doctrine. One might consider co-owners of a business as being equal owners but with different roles to play in operating the business. But nontrinitarians point to a very important statement by Jesus that contradicts the use of the term equal or "coequal". It is a simple passage where Jesus stated his explicit subordinance to the Father: "for my Father is Greater than I(John 14:28)."
In addition, the Trinity and the Nicene Creed were doctrines established over 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth as a result of conflict within the early Church. It is curious to note that Jesus had forewarned the reader in Matthew "beware the doctrines of men".
Some nontrinitarians accept that Scripture teaches Christ is divine in some sense, and the son of God, but deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Main Points of Dissent
1. The Trinity as being irrational
Criticism of the doctrine includes the argument that its "mystery" is essentially an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine substance, the "being of God", and yet not partake of each others' identity. It is also pointed out that many polytheistic pre-Christian religions arranged many of their gods in trinities, and that this doctrine may been promoted by Church leaders to make Christendom more acceptable to surrounding cultures.
2. Possible lack of Scriptural support
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]"[14], "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century"[15], and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament". The question, however, of why such a supposedly central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this, and for his opposition to infant baptism.
3. Divinity of Jesus
For some, debate over the biblical basis of the doctrine tends to revolve chiefly over the question of the deity of Jesus (see Christology). Those who reject the divinity of Jesus argue among other things that Jesus rejected being called so little as good in deference to God (versus "the Father") , disavowed omniscience as the Son, "learned obedience" , and referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God" .
They also dispute that "Elohim" denotes plurality, noting that this name in nearly all circumstances takes a singular verb and arguing that where it seems to suggest plurality, Hebrew grammar still indicates against it. They also point to statements by Jesus such as his declaration that the Father was greater than he or that he was not omniscient, in his statement that of a final day and hour not even he knew, but the Father , and to Jesus' being called the firstborn of creation and 'the beginning of God's creation,' which argues against his being eternal.
In Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73, Does the NT call Jesus God?, Raymond E. Brown wrote that there are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject."
Trinitarians, and some non-Trinitarians such as the Modalists who also hold to the divinity of Jesus Christ, claim that these statements are based on the fact that Jesus existed as the Son of God in human flesh. Thus he is both God and man, who became "lower than the angels, for our sake" and who was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin .
Some Nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life (Trinitarians believe, instead, that Christ retains full human nature even after his resurrection), by citing ("the head of Christ [is] God" [KJV]), written after Jesus had returned to Heaven, thus placing him still in an inferior relation to the Father. Additionally, they claim that Jesus became exalted after ascension to Heaven, and regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in Heaven, all after his ascension.
4. Possible un-Biblical terminology
Christian Unitarians, Restorationists, and others question the doctrine of the Trinity because it relies on non-Biblical terminology. The term "Trinity" is not found in scripture and the number three is never associated with God in any sense other than within the Comma Johanneum. Detractors hold that the only number ascribed to God in the Bible is One and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a threeness to God that is not Biblical.
5. Many scriptural citations lack the Holy Spirit
It is also argued that the vast majority of scriptures that Trinitarians offer in support of their beliefs refer to the Father and to Jesus, but not to the Holy Spirit. This suggests that the concept of the trinity was not well-established in the early Christian community.
6. Whether it is truly monotheistic or not
The teaching is also pivotal to inter-religious disagreements with two of the other major faiths, Judaism and Islam; the former reject Jesus' divine mission entirely, the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet just like Muhammad but rejects altogether the deity of Jesus. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism, of believing in three gods rather than just one. Islam holds that because Allah is unique and absolute (the concept of tawhid) the Trinity is impossible and has even been condemned as polytheistic. This is emphasized in the Qur'an which states "He (Allah) does not beget, nor is He begotten, And (there is) none like Him." (Qur'an, 112:3-4)
Scriptural texts cited as implying opposition
Among Bible verses cited by opponents of Trinitarianism are those that claim there is only one God, the Father. Other verses state that Jesus Christ was a man. Trinitarians explain these apparent contradictions by reference to the mystery and paradox of the Trinity itself. This is a partial list of verses implying opposition to Trinitarianism:

One God
• Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"
• John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
• 1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
• 1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

The Son is subordinate to the Father
• Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
• John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."
• John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
• John 17:20-23: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
• Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
• 1stCorinthians 15:24-28: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
Jesus is not the old testament God
• John 2:16: And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
• Acts 3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up...
• John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
• Daniel 7:13: I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
• Psalms 110:1: Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Ontological Differences Between "God" and Jesus
• John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
• Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
• Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
• Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
• John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
• Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
• 1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
• 1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
• Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
• Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
• Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
• Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
• Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given aurthority by God.
• Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
• Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
• Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
• Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
• 1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
• 1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.

Alternate views to the Trinity
There have been numerous other views of the relations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the most prominent include:
• Arius believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, firstborn of all Creation. However, the Son did have Divine status. This view is very close to that of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Ebionites believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father and nothing more than a special human.
• Marcion believed that there were two Deities, one of Creation / Hebrew Bible and one of the New Testament.
• Modalism states that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that God has manifested Himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind.
• Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in One Person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the Being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary.
• The Urantia Book teaches that God is the first "Uncaused Cause" who is a personality that is omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, infinite, eternal and omnipotent, but He is also a person of the Original Trinity - "The Paradise Trinity" who are the "First Source and Center, Second Source and Center, and Third Source and Center" or otherwise described as "God, The Eternal Son, and The Divine Holy Spirit".
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka "Mormons," hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (Covenant 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
• Docetism comes from the Greek: δοκηο (doceo), meaning "to seem." This view holds that Jesus only seemed to be human and only appeared to die.
• Adoptionism holds that Jesus was chosen on the event of his baptism to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and became divine upon resurrection.
• Rastafarians accept Haile Selassie I, the former (and last) emperor of Ethiopia, as Jah (the Rasta name for God incarnate, from a shortened form of Jehovah found in Psalms 68:4 in the King James Version of the Bible), and part of the Holy Trinity as the messiah promised to return in the Bible.
• Islam's Holy Book, the Quran, denounces the concept of Trinity (Qur'an 4:171, 5:72-73, 112:1-4), also in nonstandard forms, a Trinity composed of Father, Son and Mary (Qur'an 5:116). Inclusion of Mary in the presumed trinity may have been due to either a quasi-Christian sect known as the Collyridians in Arabia who apparently believed that Mary was divine, or use of the title "Mother of God" to refer to Mary.

Theory of pagan origin and influence
Nontrinitarian Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the "incomprehensible" doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found in pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.
Some find a direct link between the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, for example. They suggest that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, was an intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.
Nontrinitarians assert that Catholics must have recognized the pagan roots of the trinity, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants during the time that the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra's writings, On the Holy Church,9 :
Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing. Marcellus was rejected by the Catholic Church for teaching a form of Sabellianism.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity and the pagan and syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.

Hellenic influences on Christian thought
Advocates of the "Hellenic origins" argument consider it well supported by primary sources. They see these sources as tracing the influence of Philo on post-Apostolic Christian philosophers - many of them ex-pagan Hellenic philosophers - who then interpreted Scripture through the Neoplatonic filter of their original beliefs and subsequently incorporated those interpretations into their theology. The early synthesis between Hellenic philosophy and early Christianity was certainly made easier by the fact that so many of the earliest apologists (such as Athenagoras and Justin Martyr) were Greek converts themselves, whose original beliefs had consisted more of philosophy than religion.

Controversy over Nontrinitarianism's Status
Most nontrinitarians identify themselves as Christian. In this regard The Encyclopedia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."This view (nonrtinitarian) “in the early church”, still supported by some Christians, generates controversy among mainstream Christians. Most members of mainstream Christianity considered it heresy not to believe in the Trinity.
Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect.

Nontrinitarian Christian groups

• American Unitarian Conference
• Arian Catholicism
• Arianism
• Bible Students
• Christadelphians
• Christian Conventions a non-denominational group which publishes no dogmatic positions, but which a majority of observers classify as non-Trinitarian
• Church of Christ, Scientist
• Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
• Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
• Creation Seventh Day Adventism
• Doukhobors
• Higher Ground Online
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Living Church of God
• Living Hope International Ministries
• Molokan
• Monarchianism
• New Church
• Oneness Pentecostals
• Polish Brethren
• Socinianism
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
• The Way International
• Unification Church
• Unitarian Christians
• Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
• Iglesia ni Cristo
• True Jesus Church

Nontrinitarian people

• Natalius, ~200
• Sabellius, ~220
• Paul of Samosata, 269
• Arius, 336
• Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Constantine
• Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
• Antipope Felix II, 365
• Aëtius, 367
• Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
• Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
• Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
• Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
• Juan de Valdés, 1541
• Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
• Sebastian Castellio, 1563
• Ferenc Dávid, 1579
• Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
• John Biddle, 1662
• Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
• John Locke, 1704
• Isaac Newton, 1727
• William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710
• Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
• Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
• Benjamin Franklin, 1790
• Joseph Priestley, 1804
• Joseph Smith, 1805
• Thomas Paine, 1809
• Thomas Jefferson, 1826
• James Madison, 1836
• William Ellery Channing, 1842
• Robert Hibbert, 1849
• John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
• Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
• Benjamin Wilson, 18??
• James Martineau, 1900
• Charles Taze Russell, 1916
• Neville Chamberlain, 1940
• William Branham, 1965
• Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986

UNİTARİANİSM
Unitarianism is the belief in the oneness of God opposed to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God). Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus.

Unitarianism as a system of Christian thought and religious observance has its basis, as opposed to that of orthodox Trinitarianism, in the unipersonality of the Christian Godhead, i.e. in the idea that the Godhead exists in the person of the Father alone. Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic age, claim for their doctrine a prevalence during the ante-Nicene period. A small number of Unitarians claim a continuity through Arian communities and individual thinkers to the present time.

ARİANİSM
God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."

Arianism refers to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. 250-336 AD), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The controversial teachings of Arius dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus Christ, a relationship known as the doctrine of the Trinity.

While Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed theologically and politically in the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Longobards, but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th Century AD. Trinitarianism remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and within Protestantism, although there have been several anti-trinitarian movements, some of which acknowledge various similarities to classical Arianism.

ANOMOEAN

In 4th century Christianity, the Anomœans, also known as Anomeans, Heterousians, Aetians, or Eunomians, were a sect of Arians who asserted that Jesus Christ (the Son) was of a different nature and in no way like to that of God (the Father).

The word is from Greek α(ν)- 'not' and όμοίος 'similar' i.e. "different; dissimilar".

In the 4th century, this was the name by which the followers of Aëtius and Eunomius were distinguished; they not only denied the consubstantiality of Jesus but even asserted that he was of a nature different from that of God. This was in contradistinction to the semi-Arians, who indeed denied the consubstantiality of Jesus, but believed at the same time that he was like the Father.

ARİANİSM İN THE EARLY MEDİEVAL GERMANİC KİNGDOMS
During the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.

The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population Nicene.

The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.

"ARİAN" AS A POLEMİCAL EPITHET

Like the Arians, many groups have embraced the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, and that Jesus at one time did not exist. Some of these profess, as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation, just as the Arians believed. Drawing a parallel between these groups and Arians can be useful for distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity.

Those whose religious beliefs have been compared to or labeled as Arianism include:

*Unitarians, who believe that God is one as opposed to a Trinity, and many of whom believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Arianism is considered to be an antecedent of Unitarian Universalism.

*Jehovah's Witnesses, who do have some similar beliefs to Arius, namely, that Jesus had a pre-human existence as the Logos. However, Arius viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses do not attribute personality to the spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses also, unlike Arians, deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment in hell for the unrepentantly wicked, and episcopacy.

*Christadelphians, along with the Church of the Blessed Hope, believe that Jesus' pre-natal existence was a conceptual Logos, rather than a literal Logos.

*Mormons, followers of the various churches of the Latter Day Saint movement, who believe in the unity in purpose of the Godhead but that Jesus is a divine being distinct from, and created by, God the Father, but similar in every other respect (thus roughly Homoiousian rather than Anomoean). Thus, Jesus is literally (spiritually) the Firstborn of the Father. Also in line with Arianism, Mormons believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Logos of John 1) created the Earth under the direction of the Father. In fact, they go further than most on this point, equating the pre-existent Jesus with Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament (perhaps as a spokesman for the Father, for whom they reserve the Old Testament title Elohim). Although the LDS Church views the doctrinal schisms of the late Roman Empire as a sure sign of the Great Apostasy, they do not officially claim any allegiance to Arius.

*Muslims, who believe that Jesus (generally called Isa), was a Messenger and Prophet of the one God, but not himself divine.

*Michael Servetus, a Spanish scholar and Protestant reformer, is viewed by many Unitarians as a founding figure. In 1553, he was sentenced to death and burned at the stake by his fellow reformers, including John Calvin, for the heresy of Antitrinitarianism, a Christology that may seem similar in some ways to Arianism. However, Servetus rejected Arius's teaching on the Son being a creature created by the Father, and his theology was actually closer to Sabellianism.

*Unpublished writings by Isaac Newton indicate that he held anti-Trinitarian beliefs and regarded the worship of Jesus Christ as God to be idolatrous.[2] He did not publicize these views, which could have cost him his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, and has been described by modern scholars as a secret Arian.[3]

*Spanish liberation theologian Juan José Tamayo was accused in 2003 of defending "a renewed version of the old Arian error" which is "incompatible with the Catholic faith", by the Spanish Bishops' Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of his theological positions published in several of his books about the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Tamayo has up to now rejected the Bishops' demand to stop writing on this issue.[4]
THE THEOLOGİAN JUAN JOSE TAMAYO, ADMONİSHED BY İTS İNCOMPATİBLE İDEAS "WİTH THE CATHOLİC FAİTH"
ABC MADRID.
His book "God and Jesus", written by the secretary of the Association of Theologians and Theologians Juan XXIII, Juan Jose Tamayo Acosta, when considering that their conclusions "are incompatible with the catholic doctrine".
Frontal rejection of the tradition of the Church in its cristológicas definitions, arbitrary selection - not justified of passages of the New Testament with the express abandonment of others and interpretation of such according to confused criteria that do not specify ". In the same way,negation of the divinity of Jesus Christ, presentation of Jesus like a mere man, negation of the historical and real character of the resurrection, and this one like fundamental data of the Christian faith ".

THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATES REOPEN AFTER COUNCIL OF NICEA.

The Council of Nicea had not ended the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios, the central term of the Nicene creed, as it had been used by Paul of Samosata, who had advocated a monarchianist Christology. Both the man and his teaching, including the term homoousios, had been condemned by the Synods of Antioch in 269.

Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed.

Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed.

As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed.

The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity.

The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius' teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father.

A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.

The debates between these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Selecia in 359, and no less than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360, leading the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." None of these attempts were acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy: writing about the latter councils, Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."

After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another, and allowed all exiled bishops to return; this had the objective of further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens, however, revived Constantius' policy and supported the "Homoian" party, exiling bishops and often using force.

Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, who adhered to the Nicene creed. This allowed for settling the dispute.

Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, November 24, 380, he expelled the Homoian bishop. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.

In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381, which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes, see Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 04/03/07 14:27

A: Roy, Sweetheart....you really ought to get a hobby.

Name: Anchorite • Date: 04/05/07 1:36

A: Roy,

Your craft is great, I welcome your efforts.

Name: roy • Date: 04/06/07 16:22

A: CanuckChick, mon amour.. Do you have anything in mind that we can enjoy together. I m getting bored of thinking on ossuaries.

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/06/07 16:44

A: Who was Thomas' twin brother?And Peter and Mary could have been under stress caused by the hunt for them.They had to go underground or they would not have survived the pursecution by the Romans.

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 04/06/07 17:59

A: LOL

Why yes, Roy, I can think of a number of things we might enjoy as a duo.

Only danger is that we might TALK each other to death.

CC

Name: roy • Date: 04/06/07 21:51

A: Canuck,
Then maybe it is better hang out mono rather than duo.Where do you write? I didnt meet you. You are one of the very few lucky avoiding my bombardment. A music blog may suffice for peaceful talk, both topics lead its way to love in graceful hands. As of Canadians I dont have any hard feelings, you may come accross in another thread, I had to criticize an over nationalist citizen.

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/06/07 23:54

A: Is this the beginning of an on-the-blog romance.Get a room.

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 04/07/07 15:57

A: Panluna - Give peace a chance.

Roy - I am not nationalistic beyond a marked fondness for hockey, maple syrup, ice fishing and moose.

Perhaps, when you are next in Canada, we might share a pitcher of Margaritas in our ice hut. You may then forget about the existence of ossuaries of any description.

Take care, liebling!

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/07/07 16:26

A: OK

Name: Anchorite • Date: 04/07/07 19:56

A: My problem is that the *possible* overselection of facts by the so-called Decoders is favoring a gnostic interpretation of Jesus's message. They seem to be working towards what I want, but too hastily. Like offering salt water to a thirsting man.

Name: roy • Date: 04/07/07 22:21

A: CanuckChick, schatzi,
If I guess correctly, you are a french german parents canadian thigetera (greek).Such international atmosphere, smashed me dizziness before Margaritas escape.
I found your page, fundementalist bible believer. How is it possible every sentence to be truth in bible? Even the bishops accept it has been edited, re-edited, manupulated, but there are truth in it. It was choosen 4 out of 4000 plus bible versions in Nicea Council. Pauls letters were added. I started to miss Pat here.haha
I look forward to your offer in Canada. But why I to be next, so many muslims imigrated there? I loved your country when visited. Loose tie to race/nation is best value of human, whereas world belong to all of us freebirds.

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 04/09/07 14:27

A: Roy, Freebird - Actually, I'm of German/Hungarian ancestry. Goulasch, spatzle, paprikash - you get the picture.

I studied the bible with Jehovah's Witnesses for some years. Before then, I was a "party girl". When they started coming to my door, I didn't want anything to do with it. But, they were able to answer all my questions, backed up by the bible, and displayed a kindness and honesty that is rare in this world.
I don't think that God would be so cruel as to allow mankind to bumble about on the earth with no guidance of any sort.
I believe the bible is God's guidebook for us, and have never read anything therein to make me think otherwise.
Surely, the creator of the universe would have no trouble overseeing the construction and survival of one little book.
I believe that God's truth is very simple, and access is not limited to those with a university degree.
God and Jesus love mankind, and ask only that we return that affection, and be kind to one another.

Peace,
CC

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/09/07 23:04

A: On the wings of angels in guidance are His words are Peace and Love.

Name: roy • Date: 04/10/07 17:52

A: CC,
I made a brief study on your Jehovah's Witnesses.
Please take away hyphens if any.
http://en.wikipedia.org-/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
-I- am surprised with the same belief some bigotry laden islamic university in Egypt Al Azhar, one of oldest in history. They export clerics to all over the world.

Their sect is shiite, They believe Jesus will come second time, will reign for 40 years in absolute peace and prosperity noone will be left out as nonbeliever to him. There will be big war ~which you call Armageddon, but on the contrary to yours, the result will be demolish of our two big shrines Macca ~Mescidi Haram (kaba) and Medina ~Our prophets mescid. Then the doomsday will arrive.They even describe the body shape of king who will bomb our most sacred shrines.
Other similarities. Jehovah's Witnesses ,deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment in hell for the unrepentantly wicked, and episcopacy. Jehovah's Witnesses reject traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul. Some Muslim believe finally some sinner souls will be saved after serving their infliction in hell.

You are almost muslim my fellow sister! We also believe in bible is God's guidebook for us. You keep up at good work, finally may God let be, introduce you the last version of what He sent on earth. You re reccommended to observe kindness and honesty in Medina upon one visit there. I suggest hook up with a close-by mosque to get company and info to visit S. Arabia on december. God invites all who believes in him. At least you may see on National Geographic Video below: Inside mecca

http://shop.nationalgeogr-aphic.com/product/1526.html
-(- Please take away – hyphens if any)

3:96-97 The most important shrine established for the people is the one Kaaba in Mecca; a blessed beacon for all the people. In it are clear signs: the station of Abraham. Anyone who enters it shall be granted safe passage. THE PEOPLE OWE IT TO GOD THAT THEY SHALL OBSERVE HAJJ TO THIS SHRINE, WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD IT. As for those who disbelieve, GOD does not need anyone.

I m sorry if sound like preaching Islam. It is so obvious that all is from same God. I cant hide the truth from you. Quran indicates all religious sects to the same common source:

5 : 48 To thee we sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed. He would have made you a single people, but (his plan is) to test you in what he hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

16 : 93- If Allah so willed, he could make you all one people: but he leave straying whom he pleases, but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.

2: 62 Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

22 : 67 To every people have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute which thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the right way.

2 : 213 Mankind was one single nation, and Allah sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. Allah by His Grace guided the Believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed. For Allah guides whom He will to a path that is straight.

By the way you portray partying clubbing is against religion. I think otherwise. People need to rewind and socialize. Unlike many thinks I am for celebrating life rather than pass it in sad mood. It only needs some ultra fine tuning. No excess alcohol,~ultimately no alchohol is best, no adultry or anything near to it. These are boundries one is to observe, nothing else.

Hungarians are from same root with turks. Attila, Soleman magnificent, you must be familiar with, as well as black/ Brown haired/eyed people.
Thanks for sharing life-experience with us. Brave one
Peace for all
Roy

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 04/11/07 13:33

A: Yes, peace for all, Roy.

Your almost-Muslim, fellow sister,
CC

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media