A close friend of mine, and fellow NBBI graduate, Jerry, has been debating New Agers on a forum on Facebook called The Metaphysical Cafe. Some of my friend's responses were aided by myself. The nonsense that these people respond to him with tempts me to re-open my Facebook account and join this forum just so I can correct their falsified and erroneous information and let these people know how foolish the nonsense they are repeating really is. However, I have no desire to join Facebook ever again. I will merely take some of the statements made by Larry, the owner of this forum, and respond to them. Larry's comments will be in green, representative of the poison that they are.
The Bhagavad Gita was added late to the Mahabharata, sometime in the first century A.D. The rest of the Mahabharata was composed over an 800-year period beginning about 400 years B.C. Despite this fact, the Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most read of all Indian works in the entire world. The fact this story was added later to the Mahabharata is self-evident that Jesus' ministry clearly did not come from this work. It is incumbent upon you, Larry, to get your facts straight and to stop relying on hearsay, especially since the Bible is not based upon any other material.
Clearly you have no idea what the Pentateuch is, Larry. You keep referencing it in your comments yet none of your comments reveal an ounce of knowledge in understanding what it is. The Pentateuch (or Torah) is merely a portion of the entire Old Testament. When the New Testament refers to "Moses and the Prophets", "Moses" is referring to the Torah/Pentateuch while "Prophets" is referring to the rest of the Old Testament. The God of the Pentateuch has nothing in common with the gods of any other religion, especially the Qu'ran.
The Qu'ran says in surahs 2:225, 16:106, and 66:2 that lying is acceptable. The Qu'ran also states that Allah is the greatest of deceivers. However, the 9th Commandment says "Thou shall not bear false itness" (Ex. 20:16). In other words, Do not lie! Scripture tells us that "God cannot lie" (Tit. 1:2) and that "God is not a man that He should lie" (Num. 23:19). God cannot lie because it contradicts and is contrary to His character and being, which is truth, righteousness, and holiness. Lying goes against all three of these. Scripture also tells us that "Lying lips are an abomination to God" (Prov. 12:22) and "All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire" (Rev. 21:8). Further, Jesus said that Satan is the Father of Lies. So if Allah is the greatest of deceivers, then Allah is clearly Satan. Allah has deceived Muslims into worshiping a false prophet.
You seem to think that Allah and Yahweh are the same, Larry, but here is even more stark evidence that they are not: My God tells me to "Love your enemies and do good to them." (Luke 6:27; cf Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:35) The Muslims' god tells them to murder everybody—Jews, Christians, and pagans: smite the unbeliever (surah 47:4); fight the people of the book—Christians (surah 9:29); fight and slay pagans (surah 9:5); don't be friends with Jews and Christians (surah 5:51); kill any man who leaves Islam (surah 4:89—so much for freedom of religion: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him!" [surah 3:85]). Those are just a handful of the many verses that command them to do such things—and that is not even looking at the Haddith!
First of all, the biblical flood was not based on the Gilgamesh account. In fact, the reality is that the Gilgamesh account is based off the biblical account. You see, Gilgamesh is the Babylonian name for Nimrod and Nuh-napishtim (Atrahasis) is the Babylonian name for Noah. In the Gilgamesh account, Nuh-napishtim tells Gilgamesh all about the flood. Since Nimrod is Noah's great grandson, it makes sense that he would be telling him about it since he lived through it. Therefore, logic dictates that the obvious original account is that of the Bible.
Second of all, Isis was not a virgin nor was Ra the father of Horus nor did Horus walk on water. Osiris married his sister Isis and they had a son, Horus. The "sources" used for the Zeitgeist movie are outdated, unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, speculative, and/or conspiracy-laden tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, historical Jesus studies, Egyptology (or related fields), and/or rely on other non-scholarly, outdated, pseudo-historical books, and are therefore filled with errors. You can read more about the errors claimed in the Zeitgeist movie about Isis and Horus here. In fact, I would suggest you read the entire page.
Larry, you would do well if you attempted to research this stuff for yourself rather than regurgitating falsified information that is chock full of errors and lies. Your lack of ability to research these things for yourself earns you no respect in my eyes. If you are going to attempt to debate these issues with me, or argue against the truth, the least you could do is man up and look into the information for yourself!
Whether or not Jesus ever existed is not a matter for debate. In fact, if you ever attempted to debate it, you would lose! Secular history verifies the existence of Jesus and everything the New Testament records. If secular historians wrote about Jesus and the things he was doing, you can be certain that He did exist and that everything the New Testament says about Him is true. You may want to look into the historical secular accounts of Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion, for evidence of Jesus' existence. Furthermore, once again you reveal the inaccuracy of your information. Josephus was not living 200 years after the time of Jesus. Josephus lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Josephus' mention of Jesus is accurate.
Do you know what probability is, Larry? Probability, also known as "odds", is a branch of mathematics that measures the likelihood that a given event will occur. For example:
In order to answer the question of the probability of one man fulfilling just 8 of the 300 prophecies, we need to multiply all eight probabilities together: (1 times 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104). The result is 2.8 x 1028, or, for simplicity sake, 1 x 1028 or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. With Christ fulfilling all eight prophecies, what are the odds that the prophets were just guessing? So, you see, your statement is laughable ignorance.
"Christ" was not a part of Jesus' name, Larry, nor was it His last name. Christ is a title. It comes from the Greek Christos (Χριστος), which means "anointed". Messiah is also a title. It comes from the Hebrew Mashiyach (משׂית), which also means "anointed". Jesus, however, is Iesous (Ιησους), and is not similar in translation to either term. Ιησους means "Jehovah is salvation", i.e., "is the Saviour". Furthermore, Jesu Cristos (correctly, Jesucristos) is not Greek—it is Spanish!
What I find interesting is how you adamantly claim that you do "little else" but your own study, yet all your research bears out erroneous and falsified information. That tells me matter-of-factly that you do not do your own research, nor do you study these subjects honestly and truthfully. Someone who has genuinely studied these things out would not make the kind of blundered statements that you have repeatedly made and the false accusations that you have blindly assumed. Either your misinformation comes directly from the movie Zeitgeist, or, if you are doing any kind of so-called "research," it comes directly from those who have watched the movie and are merely parroting the regurgitated vomit they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker without thinking for themselves or looking into the so-called evidence and studying it for themselves. So, tell me, Larry, who is the one who has been brain-washed here? Who is the one believing in myths? If you can stomach the truth of the answer, you know it is you.
The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen never made it into the Bible because they were never inspired and were never written by the people they are named after. Try doing your research on this. Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas? I have. It is contradictory to everything you read in the Bible. I believe it was verse 14 that says if you pray you condemn yourself. And verse 114 where Jesus tells His disciples that He will make Mary into a man so that she can go to heaven. Do either of those sound like they belong in the Bible? Not in the least! Gnosticism was a heresy, Larry. The true church corrected the errors of Gnosticism repeatedly. You would think that about Gnosticism because you hold to a revised version of the heresy—New Age Mysticism.
The truth is, Larry, we are both narrow-minded. I am narrow-minded for the right reasons; you are narrow-minded for the wrong ones. And despite all the true facts and the correct information, you will "stand by everything [you] wrote" regardless of what the truth is. You see, the truth is that you have no desire to know what the truth is. You would rather believe falsified and erroneous information and lies instead of succumb to the truth. You claim to be open-minded but everything you have said and done reveals that you are anything but. You see, that is what logic is. It is noticing the illogical. Your own words are illogical. Everything you claim to stand for is what you actually stand against; and everything you accuse Christians of is actually what you yourself are guilty of. Ironic, is it?
Jesus nullified the Old Testament. The books of Moses, the Pentateuch, are almost verbatim from the Torah, which is a copy of much older texts, mostly Assyrian and Zoroastrian. If you insist on believing all that's written in the Old Testament, it is incumbent on you to read the material it's based on. May I suggest the story of Gilgamesh, on which the story of the biblical flood is based. The Bhagabad Gita will also show you where Jesus' supposed ministry came from. This stuff was already thousands of years old in Roman times.No, Larry, Jesus did not nullified the Old Testament; He fulfilled it: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets [the entire Old Testament]; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17). The Pentateuch is verbatim from the Torah, Larry, because they are the exact same thing! "Torah" is the Hebrew title for the five books of Moses, while scholars refer to these books as the "Pentateuch," which means "five books." The Torah is not a copy of any older texts. The Torah was written in Hebrew—not Assyrian. Zoroastrianism, by the way, is not a language or a nationality—it is a religion, named after its founder, Zoroaster (a Greek corruption of the old Iranian word Zarathushtra). The Torah is in no way based off this religion. Zoroastrianism emerged some 600 years before the birth of Christ Jesus and received its influence from Judaism (why its concepts of heaven and hell are so alike). Modern-day Zoroastrianism is far removed from what its founder initially held to, and these people have since venerated him to a position of worship.
The Bhagavad Gita was added late to the Mahabharata, sometime in the first century A.D. The rest of the Mahabharata was composed over an 800-year period beginning about 400 years B.C. Despite this fact, the Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most read of all Indian works in the entire world. The fact this story was added later to the Mahabharata is self-evident that Jesus' ministry clearly did not come from this work. It is incumbent upon you, Larry, to get your facts straight and to stop relying on hearsay, especially since the Bible is not based upon any other material.
Yahweh=Allah=God! All three are 'the people of the book', specifically the Pentateuch! common to all three faiths. Any differences are those of dogma not faith and have been behind the worst atrocities in human history. I trust no man who has to look outside himself to find God.Yahweh equals God. Yahweh does not equal Allah and Allah does not equal God. The term "the people of the book" comes from the Qu'ran, Larry, and refers directly to Christians. The book in question is the Bible. The people of the book are Christians. The Qu'ran, on several occasions, directs its readers to ask the people of the book, which they would be wise to do more often rather than blindly following their false prophet and demon God. Concerning "dogma": "Although in many contexts 'dogma' and 'doctrine' are used interchangeably, in technical theological contexts 'dogma' has a narrower meaning: a doctrine which has been given official status by a religious body. Especially in the Catholic Church dogmas are required beliefs whereas many other less firmly established beliefs are only doctrines. Nonspecialists writing about religion often ignore the distinction, and call a doctrine which has not received such official status a 'dogma.' Since only some doctrines are dogmas but all dogmas are doctrines and since 'dogma' often has negative connotations, it’s safer in non-technical religious contexts to stick with 'doctrine.'" (Common Errors in English Usage: Dogma)
Clearly you have no idea what the Pentateuch is, Larry. You keep referencing it in your comments yet none of your comments reveal an ounce of knowledge in understanding what it is. The Pentateuch (or Torah) is merely a portion of the entire Old Testament. When the New Testament refers to "Moses and the Prophets", "Moses" is referring to the Torah/Pentateuch while "Prophets" is referring to the rest of the Old Testament. The God of the Pentateuch has nothing in common with the gods of any other religion, especially the Qu'ran.
The Qu'ran says in surahs 2:225, 16:106, and 66:2 that lying is acceptable. The Qu'ran also states that Allah is the greatest of deceivers. However, the 9th Commandment says "Thou shall not bear false itness" (Ex. 20:16). In other words, Do not lie! Scripture tells us that "God cannot lie" (Tit. 1:2) and that "God is not a man that He should lie" (Num. 23:19). God cannot lie because it contradicts and is contrary to His character and being, which is truth, righteousness, and holiness. Lying goes against all three of these. Scripture also tells us that "Lying lips are an abomination to God" (Prov. 12:22) and "All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire" (Rev. 21:8). Further, Jesus said that Satan is the Father of Lies. So if Allah is the greatest of deceivers, then Allah is clearly Satan. Allah has deceived Muslims into worshiping a false prophet.
You seem to think that Allah and Yahweh are the same, Larry, but here is even more stark evidence that they are not: My God tells me to "Love your enemies and do good to them." (Luke 6:27; cf Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:35) The Muslims' god tells them to murder everybody—Jews, Christians, and pagans: smite the unbeliever (surah 47:4); fight the people of the book—Christians (surah 9:29); fight and slay pagans (surah 9:5); don't be friends with Jews and Christians (surah 5:51); kill any man who leaves Islam (surah 4:89—so much for freedom of religion: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him!" [surah 3:85]). Those are just a handful of the many verses that command them to do such things—and that is not even looking at the Haddith!
This page is for those with an open mind and not those blinded by dogma. Stating that there is only one truth or only one way is narrow-minded at best and extremely dangerous at worse. It is this very thinking and practice which has alienated us from our own power. Accepting any intermediary to God; be they priest, imam, rabbi, or other title merely hands your personal power to someone else. Reclaim your power!Is not that the pot calling the kettle black, Larry? You yourself are close-minded in following a particular dogma. You contradict what you say you believe and reveal yourself to be a hypocrite. You claim to be open-minded but you are clearly close-minded to anything I, as a Christian, have to say. I am open-minded enough in hearing what others have to say, but not so open-minded that my brains fall out. Yes, I am narrow-minded when it comes to the truth because Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13). Jesus also said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6) because "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Do not think that you yourself are not narrow-minded, Larry, because you clearly are.
I mentioned the story of the flood before, copied nearly verbatim from the myth of Gilgamesh, in ancient Assyrian or Acadian myth. Then there is the Egyptian story of Isus and Horus. Isus being a virgin impregnated by the sun god Ra begetting Horus; who, as a man, walked on water, cured the sick and lame, and performed miracles... Sound familiar? Every part of the Old Testament is lifted from earlier sources, so I ask you, which is myth?Larry, your information is dead wrong and full of errors. After reviewing much of the information that you referred me to, I have noticed that you are getting your information not from legitimate sources but directly from the movie Zeitgeist. Are you aware that everything contained in Zeitgeist has been disproven and revealed to be erroneous and falsified? Apparently not, since you are quoting it without having done a shred of research for yourself. That is just plain lazy! You have heard the old saying about the word "ass-u-me," right? Well, you have definitely made an ass of yourself.
First of all, the biblical flood was not based on the Gilgamesh account. In fact, the reality is that the Gilgamesh account is based off the biblical account. You see, Gilgamesh is the Babylonian name for Nimrod and Nuh-napishtim (Atrahasis) is the Babylonian name for Noah. In the Gilgamesh account, Nuh-napishtim tells Gilgamesh all about the flood. Since Nimrod is Noah's great grandson, it makes sense that he would be telling him about it since he lived through it. Therefore, logic dictates that the obvious original account is that of the Bible.
Second of all, Isis was not a virgin nor was Ra the father of Horus nor did Horus walk on water. Osiris married his sister Isis and they had a son, Horus. The "sources" used for the Zeitgeist movie are outdated, unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, speculative, and/or conspiracy-laden tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, historical Jesus studies, Egyptology (or related fields), and/or rely on other non-scholarly, outdated, pseudo-historical books, and are therefore filled with errors. You can read more about the errors claimed in the Zeitgeist movie about Isis and Horus here. In fact, I would suggest you read the entire page.
Larry, you would do well if you attempted to research this stuff for yourself rather than regurgitating falsified information that is chock full of errors and lies. Your lack of ability to research these things for yourself earns you no respect in my eyes. If you are going to attempt to debate these issues with me, or argue against the truth, the least you could do is man up and look into the information for yourself!
I stand by everything I wrote and none of it came from anything called 'Zeitgeist'. I've never heard of it let alone seen the movie. And don't you dare accuse me of not researching my material, I have done little else! Unlike you, I went into this with an open mind and drew my conclusions from what I found. If you research with your mind already made up, you will find what you need to corroborate misguided assumptions.If you stand by everything that you wrote, even in the face of the fact that it is all full of errors and falsified information, that just goes to prove that you are not open-minded, nor are you truthful or honest, nor do you have a desire to know the truth. You want nothing to do with the truth! It also proves that you are just as narrow-minded as I am, if not more. If you do your own research, prove it. Cite your sources. Thus far, you have not cited a single source. If you have never seen the movie Zeitgeist, and if you are doing any kind of "research" for yourself, it is clearly not from any reputable sources. Most likely your "research" consists of going to sites who write up their information from having watched the Zeitgeist movie and thereby you regurgitate falsified and erroneous information without even knowing it. If you did the least amount of research for yourself on these matters, Larry, Wikipedia would obviously be one of your primary sources to go to. It just so happens that if you look up Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Ra, that none of the information you posted can be found on any of the pages. Why? Because your information is illegitimate. It is untrue.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you on the veracity of the Bible any more than any other work of mythology, which the Bible essentially is. And whether someone named Jesus Christ ever existed is a matter for debate. The name itself is a clue coming from the Greek Jesu Cristos, translated as the 'Anointed One,' the same as the translation of the Hebrew 'Messiah.' The Holy Land under Roman occupation was rife with prophets, soothsayers, and magi, any or all of whom could fit the descriptions in the Bible. I find it interesting that nowhere in any Roman records is there any mention of anyone by that name even though the Romans were meticulous in their tax records and such. The first mention is from Josephus 200 years after the time.If you did even the slightest bit of studying for yourself, Larry, you would find that history, archeology, and real science all corroborate the Bible as being true. In fact, the Bible is the only book that hangs its credibility on its ability to write history in advance—without any error. The Bible has been under attack for many, many years and it continues to verify and validify itself over and over again. It used to be believed that the Bible was in error because no such people as the Midians existed. That was until their capital city was dug up and their records found. It was claimed that there was never such a king named "David", until archeology dug up evidence to support the Bible once again. If you want to learn more about how history, archeology, and science prove the Bible, read my blog entries Defending Your Faith.
Whether or not Jesus ever existed is not a matter for debate. In fact, if you ever attempted to debate it, you would lose! Secular history verifies the existence of Jesus and everything the New Testament records. If secular historians wrote about Jesus and the things he was doing, you can be certain that He did exist and that everything the New Testament says about Him is true. You may want to look into the historical secular accounts of Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion, for evidence of Jesus' existence. Furthermore, once again you reveal the inaccuracy of your information. Josephus was not living 200 years after the time of Jesus. Josephus lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Josephus' mention of Jesus is accurate.
Do you know what probability is, Larry? Probability, also known as "odds", is a branch of mathematics that measures the likelihood that a given event will occur. For example:
- Being struck by lightning in a year = 7 x 105 or 1 in 700,000
- Being killed by lightning in a year = 2 x 106 or 1 in 2,000,000
- Becoming president = 1 x 107 or 1 in 10,000,000
- A meteorite landing on your house = 1.8 x 1014 or 1 in 180,000,000,000,000
- You will eventually die = 1 in 1
| Old Testament Prophecy | New Testament Fulfillment | Probability |
| Christ to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) |
And Herod asked where Christ had been born ... they answered Bethlehem (Matt 2:4-6) |
2.8 x 105 or 1 in 280,000 |
| Forerunner of Christ (Malachi 3:1) |
John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ (Mark 1:2-8) |
1 x 103 or 1 in 1,000 |
| Christ to enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey (Zech 9:9) |
Christ enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey (Matt 21:4-11) |
1 x 102 or 1 in 100 |
| Christ to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9) |
Judas betrayed Jesus (Luke 22:21) |
1 x 103 or 1 in 1,000 |
| Christ to be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech 11:12) |
Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (Matt 26:15) |
1 x 103 or 1 in 1,000 |
| 30 pieces of silver casted down and used to buy a potter's field (Zech 11:13) |
30 pieces of silver used to buy a potter's field (Matt 27:3-10) |
1 x 105 or 1 in 100,000 |
| Although innocent, Christ kept silent when on trial (Isaiah 53:7) |
Jesus kept silent when questioned (Mark 14:60-61) |
1 x 103 or 1 in 1,000 |
| Christ crucified (Psalm 22:16) |
Jesus was crucified (John 19:17, 18) |
1 x 104 or 1 in 10,000 |
In order to answer the question of the probability of one man fulfilling just 8 of the 300 prophecies, we need to multiply all eight probabilities together: (1 times 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104). The result is 2.8 x 1028, or, for simplicity sake, 1 x 1028 or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. With Christ fulfilling all eight prophecies, what are the odds that the prophets were just guessing? So, you see, your statement is laughable ignorance.
"Christ" was not a part of Jesus' name, Larry, nor was it His last name. Christ is a title. It comes from the Greek Christos (Χριστος), which means "anointed". Messiah is also a title. It comes from the Hebrew Mashiyach (משׂית), which also means "anointed". Jesus, however, is Iesous (Ιησους), and is not similar in translation to either term. Ιησους means "Jehovah is salvation", i.e., "is the Saviour". Furthermore, Jesu Cristos (correctly, Jesucristos) is not Greek—it is Spanish!
What I find interesting is how you adamantly claim that you do "little else" but your own study, yet all your research bears out erroneous and falsified information. That tells me matter-of-factly that you do not do your own research, nor do you study these subjects honestly and truthfully. Someone who has genuinely studied these things out would not make the kind of blundered statements that you have repeatedly made and the false accusations that you have blindly assumed. Either your misinformation comes directly from the movie Zeitgeist, or, if you are doing any kind of so-called "research," it comes directly from those who have watched the movie and are merely parroting the regurgitated vomit they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker without thinking for themselves or looking into the so-called evidence and studying it for themselves. So, tell me, Larry, who is the one who has been brain-washed here? Who is the one believing in myths? If you can stomach the truth of the answer, you know it is you.
The Bible is your only source, which is fine if it proves to be 100% accurate.This statement is entirely false, but even if it was true, why would I need any other source when the one I use has proven itself accurate 100% of the time? Again, the Bible is the only book that hangs its credibility on its ability to write history in advance—without any error. Since history, archeology, and science all verify the veracity of the Bible, what other source could be as reliable? The Bible is the only authority we need!
The fossil record indicates that human ancestry goes back nearly 5 million years and modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago. Did God create dinosaurs just to put their bones in the rock to confuse us? The best guess is that the universe is 15 billion years old, we know that now because we have the technology to determine it, these time scale were inconceivable to the people of biblical times.What fossil records are you referring to, Larry. The one the evolutionists have is fictionalized and does not exist. The fossils we do have do not go back 5 million years let alone 200,000 years. Humans never evolved. You have been made a monkey of if you think we evolved from monkeys. There was never such a thing as "cave men" who stumbled upon fire and eventually made the wheel. These are all bogus concepts that have been proven wrong hundreds of times over the past hundred years. Dinosaurs (correct term, dragons) walked the Earth with man (and still do, but in much smaller forms than before, except for those that are extinct). Try picking up Kent Hovind's videos or Dragons or Dinosaurs? and educate yourself on the truth. The "best guess"? Try the worst guess. At least the term "guess" is correct, since all the evidence suggests that it is less than 10,000 years old.
All history is revisionist, having been written after the events described, sometimes years after, and subject to the personal beliefs and whims of the author. And it is always written within the context of the times. For instance, the King James Bible was unlikely to contain anything that King James himself didn't approve. Same can be said for earlier versions, which is why gospels by Thomas and Mary Magdalen didn't make the cut, because they emphasized the human rather than the divine. This didn't serve the interests of the Church, which wanted to maintain control of the flock through fear. No Jerry, gnosticism was the true church, it was co-opted for political reasons in a vain attempt to save the Roman Empire. The God of the Bible as written now is a jealous, vindictive tyrant not the loving, forgiving God of fairy tales. These are human qualities not qualities one would expect from an eternal being.Most history is revisionist—not all. Many of the historical people you believe in, the stuff you believe about them was written hundreds of years after they lived. You believe in Julius Caesar, yet there is nothing written about him from during his time. Same with Alexander the Great. You believe what you believe about these men after the fact. The Bible, however, was written by eye witnesses, especially everything pertaining to the New Testament. The Bible was not written hundreds of years later by foreigners of the events, like what you read about your favourite historical figures. As for the context of the times, you could not be more wrong. The King James Bible never sacrificed the text of the Bible. Your information is misconstrued once again, Larry. What the King James Bible does not include is the commentary that the Geneva Bible had included, which is not part of the original text. The reason being that King James did not like certain commentary notes and feared for his kingdom. However, the text between these Bibles is the same.
The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen never made it into the Bible because they were never inspired and were never written by the people they are named after. Try doing your research on this. Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas? I have. It is contradictory to everything you read in the Bible. I believe it was verse 14 that says if you pray you condemn yourself. And verse 114 where Jesus tells His disciples that He will make Mary into a man so that she can go to heaven. Do either of those sound like they belong in the Bible? Not in the least! Gnosticism was a heresy, Larry. The true church corrected the errors of Gnosticism repeatedly. You would think that about Gnosticism because you hold to a revised version of the heresy—New Age Mysticism.
The truth is, Larry, we are both narrow-minded. I am narrow-minded for the right reasons; you are narrow-minded for the wrong ones. And despite all the true facts and the correct information, you will "stand by everything [you] wrote" regardless of what the truth is. You see, the truth is that you have no desire to know what the truth is. You would rather believe falsified and erroneous information and lies instead of succumb to the truth. You claim to be open-minded but everything you have said and done reveals that you are anything but. You see, that is what logic is. It is noticing the illogical. Your own words are illogical. Everything you claim to stand for is what you actually stand against; and everything you accuse Christians of is actually what you yourself are guilty of. Ironic, is it?