causes & news

even, Iran. I believe that this house church move will replace all traditional, & largely dead, formal Christendom that has existed since Constantine. People's needs are actually met in these informal house churches.

Earlier, you mentioned that several other ancient texts, such as Vaticanus, are not in existence before around the 10th century A.D. However, a "Textus Sinaticus" predates Vaticanus, and these texts, along with early Church fathers' writings, and text fragments of John, etc. that date to around A.D. 100, point to the authenticity of the NT as well as the Old.

Regarding prehistory, there is too little extant archeological data to really date the beginnings of monotheism. There are inscriptions of the "sun god' of Egypt, as a possible early form of it, while there are pre-Abrahamic oral traditions that suggest Semitic early monotheism may have existed alongside the ancient polytheistic 'mother-goddesses" of Anatolia (Cybele),, whose images & idols have been discovered all over the Near East.

Regarding the concept of resurrection, virgin birth, etc. there were ancient Ugaritic/Canaanite (and Vedic) references to such gods being resurrected and virgin born. However, that in no way discredits early Christian accounts, and in fact, may be taken as C.S. Lewis noted, as sort of pagan prophetic symbology of future supernatural intervention on earth. The idea of blood being need to remediate sin was known in nearly all original tribal cultures on e

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Michael, my last word was cut off, meant to say that the early Catholic church (post 300 A.D.) may have called Mary M a whore, but Jesus never did, nor did the earlier church.

Regarding the OT, you say "One more point about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only thing about the bible they prove to be "unchanged" is the Old Testament. The Hebrew bible. Not the newer Christian version. Also the fact it has taken decades to translate has created much skepticism."

That was my point: to defend the authenticity of the Hebrew OT. Not sure what you mean by the "newer Christian version." Both Jewish and Christian scholars have worked together on carefully translating the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and other ancient texts into our modern "Christian" Bible.

I don't believe that there is "skepticism" about the validity of the Dead Sea Scrolls writings; there have been ego, legal and turf struggles between many groups of int'l scholars/schools about which scholars should do the translation work, with one main groups refusing to release documents, etc. That should be resolved, but doesn't impinge on the authenticity of the texts.

I have one more post for you; I, too, share your disappointment with organized Christianity; I believe God is beginning to raise up the original earliest apostolic model of "The Way" (Acts 4:32 ff), where a 'communal-style' of sharing and actual love existed--a house (cell) church movement, that is spreading around the world today (India, China,

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Michael, you mentioned that none of the writers of the 4 accepted gospels were contemporaries of Jesus. Actually, in the writings/quotations of the earliest church fathers, such as Papias, it is written that Peter dictated his oral remembrances to Mark, which was likely written first, and then Matthew and Luk, who wrote both Luke & Acts of Apostles. John likely wrote or dictated his books, including Revelation, in the late 1st century before his death. The Muratorium Canon, compiled in the 200s, essentially lists the New Testament books we have today, with a couple additions (Ignatius' works, Shephard of Rome, Clement, etc). This was well before Constantine's time (300+ A.D.), and the Council of Nicea.

You also mention that the "fires of hell" concept came from Dante. The Hebrew "gehenna" idea actually had its origins from the seemingly unending burning trash fires in a valley outside Jerusalem before the time of Christ; it provided some imagery for the concept of fire consuming the sinner and lost, etc. Anyway, whether or not hellfire is symbolic or not, hell represents a place of separation from the Creator's universe of love, light, matter, etc.

Regarding Mary Magdelene, she might have been an apostle; however, it is only in the later Gnostic gospels in the 200s that any intimate relationship between her & Jesus is suggested. Jesus broke religious taboos and exalted women (e.g. John 4). "the papacy at one point tried to call Mary Madelena a whore"--no

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Hi, Michael: Like you, I am no expert. I do have Master degrees in Religion (from Trinity Divinity School, Deerfield, IL), and in Geography from S. Dakota State. However, I have done considerable study in the field of comparative religions and anthropology, and remain convinced that the core of the gospel, ..."it is by grace (unmerited) that you are saved, and that of of yourselves, not of works, unless any one should boast.." is not found in other monotheistic, polytheistic or henotheistic faiths. However, faith does require that one step beyond the bounds of our finite intellect for the Unknown. I want to comment briefly on a few of your points.

You say, "I don't know how you can say 99% of the gospels are unchanged Kirk especially since Constantine only accepted 17 of the 50 original Gospels. Also the papacy at one point tried to call Mary Madelena a whore. Another change was hell with the fire and brimstone. That came for the most part from Dante's Inferno and Milton."
As you are aware, there were several "Gnostic" gospels written beginning around 100 A.D. and up to around 300 A.D. However, of these 50+, none were written by contemporaries of Jesus, but by proponents of Greek Gnosticism (i.e. gnosis, or 'secret knowledge,'), the early origins of which began in the late Apostolic era, with the Apostle John in I John 4:2, stating that some were claiming that Jesus did not "come in the flesh.." Gnostics said the physical body was evil, and 'spirit' only was good.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

One more point about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only thing about the bible they prove to be "unchanged" is the Old Testament. The Hebrew bible. Not the newer Christian version. Also the fact it has taken decades to translate has created much skepticism. As of 2007 two entire volumes were yet to be transcribed.

From wikipedia:
"While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content."

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Well I appreciate your kind words Thomas but I see Kirk's point too. I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to religion. But I am no expert. I don't think Kirk is either. That's not an insult. It would take years upon years of study to know more and apparently even those who have ventured in that direct still have many uncertainties and unanswered questions. I find it a fascinating subject though always controversial.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

last phrase was........."would it were that were possible."

send green star | flag as inappropriate

In the wake of what I've read of the last many posts, Kirk J offers the only well written and thought out (though false) opposition to the recent string of insightful knowledge from
Michael S.

When I hear anyone quoting ANY religious text as fact, I'm reminded of one day in second grade when we played a game called "telephone". We all sat around in a circle. The teacher started with a simple phrase, I believe it was "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". The teacher whispered this phrase into the ear of the student to her right, who whispered it to the next, and so on, 'till the phrase came 'full circle' back to the teacher.

The results?

Go figure, the phrase spoken by the last child in the circle bore no resemblance whatever to the teacher's phrase at the beginning of the game.

Lesson learned by those of us paying attention was:

Just because you heard it doesn't make it so and...
people embellish. It's human nature.

Years later after learning some of the history of the new testament it occurred to me, hmm, no printing presses around then, what's the chance the original story in ANY ancient holy book bears any resemblance to the actual events that inspired those stories?

Michael S, I consider myself intelligent and fairly well educated, but I aspire to be the fountain of knowledge you are. I love your posts.

It's just too bad Carol won't read a word of what's been written in response to her last silly post, she might learn something, would

send green star | flag as inappropriate

One more point, most of the writings of the Gospel didn't even come out until the 2 century. I know certain Christian groups say 70 AD yet no mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple which happened that very year. There were many other relevant events that took place that year yet not a peep about them. One of the 4 oldest known complete Christian scribes are the Codex Alexandrinus. A Greek version of the gospels, it dates back around the 5th century. Same for The Codex Vaticanus, also in Greek as probably were all the other two. I would further add that none of the writers in the Gospel including Mark knew Christ. And his gospel took more then 40 years to write. Of course there is a Gospel of Peter as well as a Gospel of Mary, but those Gnostic verses were denied by the church as heresy. Probably because the Pope murdered thousands of Gnostic's in France. Also the reference that Mary Magdalena was herself an Apostle and in a man's world that didn't wash.

As for your half truth remarks, you are basing your assumptions on your faith and I on scientific evidence.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

The Mormons! Exactly! What a hoot. When he was called on to rewrite the original word he couldn't remember it. Wrote a completely different fabrication. You'd probably get a better version from South Park.

send green star | flag as inappropriate