Scriptures under scrutiny

[anadi 0]

To understand any system of religion, of any sect or creed, one should go deep and investigate how came into being the books, that religion relies on, i.e. who are their authors, and possible borowed influences.

 

According to the vedic standard a book can convey the spiritual knowledge, if its author, had spiritual realisation of the spiritual reality (conection with the Lord, a process to attain a relation with the Lord, attainment of the described ultimate goal).

 

One should know, what one is putting one’s confidence in,

because confidence is the fundament of any endeavor,

which doesn’t mean that any endeavor, may be the proper one.

Anyway, anyone endeavors according one’s qualification.

So … we are called to qualifiy.

 

Please feel confortable to take any religion you want and present the origins of their books, and their authors, based on evidences, which are liabel to be questioned..

[anadi 0]

As we all know some of the divergent doctrines regarding the spiritual truths, have ensued with the advent of christianity.

 

I would like to take under scrutiny some of their books, please help.

 

For example in The Encyclopedia Biblica, cited as EB., four volumes; Adam &

Charles Black, Londonlace, 1899; American Reprint, The Macmillan Co.,

New York, 1914 it is written

 

"To compose 'letters' under another

name, especially under the name of persons whose living

presentment, or real or supposed spiritual equipment, it, was

proposed to set before the reader, was then just us usual as was

the other practice of introducing the same persons into narratives

and reporting their 'words' in the manner of which we have

examples, in the case of Jesus, in the Gospels, and, in the case of

Peter, Paul, and other apostles, in the Acts." (EB. iii, 3481.)

 

See: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/chapter_5.html>>

 

In wisdomworld http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/hypatia.html

 

is written that

 

In the 300 years which had elapsed since his (Jesus) death, a large number of manuscripts had come to light, all claiming to be authentic.

In regard to those which were extant in the third century, Faustus, the Manichean, had written:

 

“Every one knows that the Evangeliums were written neither by Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, but long after their time by some unknown persons, who, judging well that they would hardly be believed when telling things they had not seen themselves, headed their narratives with the names of the Apostles or of disciples contemporaneous with the latter.

By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic.”

[theist 1]

Do you have such time to spend on this project? Not me. I feel death hovering over me prepared to strike at any time. I must spend my time taking the essence from scriptures and if I have trouble finding such in some religious book then I must put it away and search for that essence in another.

[D B Cooper Jr 0]

I just let the History channel do all that stuff for me although sometimes they do get a little "out there". The other night I watched a show saying that Elijah was not actually taken to heaven by chariots but by extraterrestials and that when Moses parted the Red Sea it was with an electromagnetic device given to him by aliens. Some of these guys saying this stuff where actual Catholic Priests as well. So all I got to say is "Beam me up Scotty"

[Guest guest]

Keep it up. it is very important to expose these. You become dear to Krishna doing so.

[anadi 0]

"The Gospel has come down to us," says Bishop Irenaeus (about 185 A.D.), which the apostles did at one time proclaim in public, <O:pand, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us inthe Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ... For,after our Lord rose from the dead [the apostles] departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things sent from God to us, who indeed do equally and individually possess the Gospel of God." (Iren., Adv. Haer, Bk. III, ch. i; ANF. i, 414.)

<O:p

Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias have both averred that the<O:p</O:p

Christ lived to old age (even as late as 98-117 A.D.), flatly<O:p</O:p

denying thus as "heresy" the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion<O:p</O:p

at about thirty years of age.

<O:p

The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE.( fifteen volumes and<O:p</O:p

index, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; New<O:p

York, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.) says

"We have New Testament MSS. written not much more than 300 years after the composition of the books"; <O:p

and it admits:<O:p

"And in them we find numerous differences, though but few of them <O:pare important." (CE. xiv, 526.) In this CE. <O:p

At another place, and speaking much more nearly the truth, contradicts itself, saying:<O:p

"The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences<O:p

between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been<O:p

noticed and which all scholars readily admit. ... Those evangelical<O:p</O:p

records (SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke) whose mutual resemblances are<O:p

obvious and striking, and ... the narrative (that of St. John)<O:p</O:p

whose relation with the other three is that of dissimilarity rather<O:p</O:p

than that of likeness." (CE. vi, 658.)

PS

Special Guest said:

- Keep it up. it is very important to expose these.

Dear Special Guest

- This might be true.

 

[anadi 0]

The CE. [The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE.( fifteen volumes and<O:p</O:p

index, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; New<O:p

York, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.)] says:<O:p</O:p

"It is easy to understand how numerous would be the readings of a text transcribed as often as the Bible, and, as only one reading can represent the original, it follows that all the others are necessarily faulty. Mill estimated the variants of the New Testament at 30,000, and since the discovery of so many MSS. unknown to Mill, this number has greatly increased." (CE. iv, 498.)

<O:p</O:p

The "canonical" books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are full of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more "variant readings," as is well known and admitted. <O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

Who, then, is "inspired" to distinguish true from false readings, and thus to know what Jesus Christ and his entourage really said and did, or what some copyist's error or priest's forgery make them say or do, falsely? <O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

Of the chaos and juggling of sacred texts in the Great Dioceses of Africa, CE. says:<O:p</O:p

"There never existed in early Christian Africa an official Latin text known to all the Churches, or used by the faithful to the exclusion of all others. The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the MSS (manuscripts) were of the Western type. On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. ... Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations from the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other." (CE. i, 193.)<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

[gHari 0]

... makes us all experts.

 

No one will impress their brother-in-law by denouncing the Christian acarya or scripture. That will only convince him that Vaisnavism is not The Way, and is truly evil. To convince him, surrender to Krsna .... Krsna is in his heart as the Holy Spirit. Lift him up beyond his dogmatic idioms, to his true swan-like nature. Kindness is needed, not defeat.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

Qu'ran and Bible or Scriptures of the mellachas [meat-eaters] are 'temporary scriptures' according to Chaitanya Charitamrta. ..because and it is my opinion as they don't mention re-incarnation or that animals actually have souls because they are conscious entities with feelings.

 

Talking with a Christian I asked 'Why do you kill Cows as she is clearly your mother?' The reply I recieved was it is only an animal!. When I asked if she has a dog? The reply was 'yes and it is only a pet'. ! The Person had no commen sence.

[anadi 0]

 

No one will impress their brother-in-law by denouncing the Christian acarya or scripture. That will only convince him that Vaisnavism is not The Way, and is truly evil.

The answer had been already given.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/showthread.php?p=310603#post310603

[anadi 0]

Bishop Victor of Tunnunum, who died about 569 A.D. and whose work, says The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE., ( fifteen volumes and<O:p</O:pindex, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; New <O:pYork, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.)] ,

"is of great historical value," says that in the fifth century,

"In the consulship of Messala, at the command of the Emperor Anastasius, the Holy Gospels, as written Idiotis Evangelists, are corrected and amended." (Victor of T., Chronica, p. 89-90; cited by Dr. Mills, Prolegom. to R.V., p. 98.)

This would indicate some very substantial tinkering with Holy Writ; which

process was a continuing one, for, says CE.,

"Under Sixtus V (1585- 90) and Clement VIII (1592-1605) the Latin Vulgate after years of revision attained its present shape." (CE., xii, 769.) And the Vulgate, which was fiercely denounced as fearfully corrupt, was only given sanction of divinity by the Council of Trent in 1546, under the Curse of God against any who questioned it. Though this amendatory tinkering of their two Holinesses was after the Council of Trent had put the final Seal of the Holy Ghost on the Vulgate in 1546!

The ancient clerical trick of tempering with the "Word of God" and amending its plenary Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy, goes on apace today, even to the extent of putting a veneer of civilization on the Hebrew God, and warping his own words so as to make a semblance of a "God of Mercy" out of the self-styled "Jealous God" of Holy Writ.

In 1902, after the sacred Council of Trent, in 1546, had put the Curse of God on any further tinkering with the Inerrant Bible, His Holiness Leo XIII appointed a Commission of Cardinals, known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to further amend Divine Inspiration; in 1907, "the Commission, with the approval of the sovereign pontiff, invited the Benedictine Order to undertake a collection of the variant readings of the Latin Vulgate as a remote preparation for a thoroughly amended edition." (CE. ii, 557.)

This august body has laid before His Holiness, after all these years of labor, the revised text of the revelations of Moses in the Book of Genesis; and is now worrying with Exodus and the "Ten Commandments" in chapter XX thereof.

Associated Press dispatches, relate that "the Vatican's International Commission on the revision of the Bible [is] taking steps to correct one of the most famous Biblical passages, Exodus xx, 5, now believed to have been mistranslated"! (N.Y. Times, May 18, 1930.)

The actual text, and "what the Vatican Commission thinks it should read," are here quoted so that all may judge how small changes can give an absolute different meaning to the text; -- the material tampering being indicated by italics.

Exodus xx, 5 -- as is.

"For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the

iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and

fourth generation of then that hate me"; ...

Ditto -- as falsified.

"For I, the Lord thy God, am a God of loving-kindness and

mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating

circumstances in judging the children unto the third and

fourth generation"!

But the two simple Hebrew words chiefly involved make this "correction" ridiculous and impossible. In Hebrew, Yahweh says from Sinai: "Anoki yahweh elohe-ka EL QANNA --

I Yahweh thy God [am a] Jealous God."

The only false translation in this verse is "Lord thy God" for the 6,000-times falsified "Yahweh thy God,".

Always "qanna" means "jealous' -- and is used of the "jealous god," husband, wife, etc.

[gHari 0]

Let's assume it's all true and keep pasting as though we are greatly qualified scholars. Then we can turn this thread into a true pilgrimage for crows, instead of a monument to one man's pain. Presenting yourself as an expert by quoting others is so shameless. You might as well refute quantum mechanics. You simply play on the naivety and hurt of fools, much like "The only wayfor all our sins" poseur preachers.

 

For any offended Christians reading this thread, please know that not all Vaishnavas are so challenging:<blockquote> So Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that I am servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of Krishna [Cc. Madhya 13.80]. So <B>if anyone loves Krishna, he must love Lord Jesus Christ also</b>. And if one perfectly loves Jesus Christ he must love Krishna. If he says, "Why shall I love Krishna? I shall love Jesus Christ," then he has no knowledge. And if one says, "Why shall I love Jesus Christ? I shall love...", then he has also no knowledge. If one understands Krishna, then he will understand Jesus Christ. If one understands Jesus Christ, you'll understand Krishna. -- Srila Prabhupada conversations May 12,1969 </blockquote>

 

This thread had nothing to do with 'scriptures'. It was Bible-bashing from the first keystroke, under the cheating guise of scholarship. What a farce - no different than the visitors pretending to ask questions about the Vedas, so transparent and deceitful.

 

You will know a tree by its fruits.

[anadi 0]

qhari said:

Let's Quote From the Anti-Vedic Anti-Hindu Sites Also

dear qhari,

feel free to quote whatever you like,

and anadi will take his time to analise it, if it is true or not.

you didn't prove that whatever anadi had posted up to now is false.

You just speak in slogans, no replies to the actual facts.

[gHari 0]

How about prove true?

[anadi 0]

AnAdi said:<O:p</O:p

you didn't prove that whatever anadi had posted up to now is false.

You just speak in slogans, no replies to the actual facts.

<O:p</O:p

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->gHari said:<O:p</O:p

How about prove true?<O:p</O:p

<O:p

Dear gHari,<O:p</O:p

Than<O:p</O:p

 

• One has solid evidence regarding the falsity which is called truth.<O:p</O:p
• One's capacity to distinguish, namely one’s intelligence gets sharper<O:p</O:p
• One can understand how was possible that fake doctrines replaced fundamental Vedic Truths.<O:p</O:p

[Kalkin714 0]

<font face="Courier New"><font size="3"><b>What's the poind of attacking Christianity on a Hindu forum?

 

You say it's good to be educated on such things, well it's no big secret that the Roman church-state and their version of "revealed" scriptures is a load. But that doesn't mean that all Christianity is faulty. Mabey you need to get educated on otherways of Christian thought. See what aspects of what sects have ideals that may be common to your beliefs.

 

You know, focus on the positive instead of the negative

[anadi 0]

Kalkin714 said:<O:p</O:p

<O:p

well it's no big secret that the Roman church-state and their version of "revealed" scriptures is a load.<O:p</O:p

<O:p

Dear kalkin 714,<O:p</O:p

If one makes some statements, one should prove them.<O:p</O:p

This thread is for that person, who wants to have some evidence for such, not quite elegant, statements as yours.

This thread is not intended to hurt someone's feelings.

One sould keep a moderate tone, and bring one's evidence to clarify the point.

The truth .... must be proved, and the lie shouldn't spread in the name of truth.

[anadi 0]

The present titles of "the Four Gospels" are not original but given to them by some unknown writers. The present clerical position, seeking to save the works, is that, like the Acts of the Apostles, "the name was subsequently attached to the book, just as the headings of the several Gospels were affixed to them." (CE. i, 117.)

More particularly speaking of the Gospel titles, the same authority says:

"The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Gospel According to [Gr. kata] Matthew, According to Mark, etc.) which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. ... That, however,<O:p</O:p

they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or<O:p</O:p

at least that they are not original, is a position generally held<O:p</O:p

at the present day. ... It thus appears that the titles of the<O:p</O:p

Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves." (CE. vi,<O:p</O:p

655, 656.)

<O:p</O:p

The very fact that the late second century Gospel-titles are of Gospels "according to" this or that alleged apostle, rather than "The Gospel of Mark" etc., is itself confession and plenary proof that "Mark," et als., were not -- and were not intended to be represented as -- the real authors of those "according to" Gospels.<O:p</O:p

The form of the titles to the Epistles -- also later tagged to them, -- as "The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans," etc. makes this clear and convincing, that no Apostles wrote the "according to" Gospel-biographies of the Christ.<O:p</O:p

<O:p

Here we have, by clearest inference, an admission that the Gospels were not written by Apostles or their contemporaries. These titles "do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings; ... do not go back to the first century; ... are not original; ... are not traceable to the<O:p</O:p

Evangelists." <O:p</O:p

<O:p

All the flood of forged and spurious gospels, epistles, acts and revelations -- "the apocryphal and pseudo-Biblical writings with which the East especially had been flooded" (CE. iii, 272), bore the names of the pretended writers, from the false Books of Adam and Enoch to the forged "Gospel of Jesus Christ" and the "Apocalypse of St. Peter."

<O:p

But the authentic and true Gospels of the genuine Apostles of Messiah (simple un-schooled people), must have been nameless and dateless scraps of papyrus!

Imagine the great Fathers and Bishops of the Churches, rising in their pulpits before the gaping Faithful; taking up an anonymous roll of manuscript, and announcing: "Our lesson today is from, (ahem!) one of the wonderful Gospels of our Lord and Savior; but, (ahem!) I don't really know which one… the writer forgot to sign or insert his name.

<O:p

PS

There are many web sites, these informations are available, but usually in a more sarcastic tone.

[Kalkin714 0]

[quote name='anadiDear kalkin 714,<O:p</O:p

If one makes some statements, one should prove them.<O:p</O:p

This thread is for that person, who wants to have some evidence for such, not quite elegant, statements as yours.

This thread is not intended to hurt someone's feelings.

One sould keep a moderate tone, and bring one's evidence to clarify the point.

The truth .... must be proved, and the lie shouldn't spread in the name of truth.

[anadi 0]

 

Don't try to make your little lynching out to be some sort of intellectual debate.

Power corrupts. If you need to explain that to someone then they brobably don't have the brain capacity to understand it anyways.

Dear kalkin714,

This thread is not intending to show, that power corrupts, but the implications of that corruption.

[Kalkin714 0]

 

Dear kalkin714,

This thread is not intending to show, that power corrupts, but the implications of that corruption.

Q. Why then only show it in Christianity? Why not show the implications of corruption elsewhere too?

A. Because this is just an attack on Christianity with the pretense of something more noble. And a pretty transparent one at that!

[anadi 0]

kalkin714 said:

<O:p</O:p

<O:p

... this is just an attack on Christianity with the pretense of something more noble. And a pretty transparent one at that!

<O:p</O:p

<O:p

Dear kalkin714,

<O:p</O:p

<O:p

Showing the truth about the way false doctrine about spirituality came into being, can be interpreted as an attack, or a denunciation.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy.<O:p</O:p

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[anadi 0]

The first mention of the names or titles, as of the "Gospels", was not until about 185 A.D., when the "Gospels according to" appear in ecclesiastical literature, and thereupon began their career in the current use of the Churches, and therefore, evidently, then first came into existence. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p< b>

 

 

<O:p< p>

The only pretext whereby generations of men should be persuaded or compelled to accept and believe the Gospels (as well as the other N.T. books), except the threat "he that believeth not shall be damned," is that these books should have been written by immediate companions and apostles of the Christ, faithful eye-witnesses to his work and word, commanded and inspired to write the biographies of the Christ.<O:p< O:p< p> This is explicitly the teaching and dogma of the Church, which states that "certain indubitable marks" must be known to ascertain true Apostolic authenticity, essential to validity and credence,

 

"For the primitive Church, evangelical character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee this character it was necessary that a book should be known as composed by the official witnesses and organs of the Evangel; hence to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ." (CE. iii, 274.)<O:p< O:p< p>

<O:p< p>Three centuries later Bishop Eusebius in his Church History relates that Peter preached orally in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:City w:st=<st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:City>, Mark being his "disciple" and companion, but he brings no evidence for his allegations.

<O:p< O:p< b>

He just pretends, in two different and contradictory versions, that people wanted a written record of Peter's preachments, and (probably because Peter couldn't write), they importuned Mark to write down "that history which is called the Gospel known as the one according to Mark".<O:p< O:p< p>

<O:p< p>

Both versions related in his Church History, three centuries later, join in declaring that the "Gospel according to Mark" was publicly given to the Churches, , just before or after the death of Peter, 64-67 A.D., but without presenting any evidence for it.<O:p< O:p< p>

This allegation of Eusebius is false because:<O:p< O:p< p> </O:p<>

<O:p< O:p< p></O:p<>

<O:p< O:p< p>1. The great Pope Clement I (died about 97 A.D.), first-to-fourth "successor" to Pope Peter, knew nothing of his great Predecessor's "Gospel according to Mark"; for, admits the CE.: "The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels." (CE. iv, 14.)

 

2. No other Pope, Bishop or Father for nearly a century after "Pope Clement," ever mentions or quotes a Gospel, or names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. <O:p< O:p< p>

So for a century and a half – until the books “bobbed up” in the hands of Bishop St. Irenaeus and were tagged as "Gospels according to" this or that Apostle, there exists not a word of them in all the tiresome tomes of the Fathers. <O:p< O:p< p>

<O:p< p>

It is quite impossible that the "Apostolic authorship" and hence "canonicity" or divine inspiration of the Sacred Four Gospels should have remained, for a century and a half, unknown and unsuspected by every Church, Father, Pope and Bishop of Christendom -- if existent.<O:p< p>

Hear this notable admission: "It was not until about <O:p< font O:p<>the middle of the second century that under the rubric of Scripture <O:p< font O:p< <O:p< iii, (CE. Old?! the to assimilated were writings Testament New O:pthe>275), -- that is, became regarded as apostolic, sacred, inspired and canonical, -- or "Scriptures."<O:p< O:p< p>

 

Altough the allegations of bishop Eusebius written some 300 years later are false, they are still used by the Church as evidence for the way the four Gospels came into being, pretending they have a divine origin.

</O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<>

[Kalkin714 0]

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy

And he was wrong.

[Guest guest]

I'll take this as a lesson: once the church gets into "book changing", who knows what is real or false a few hundred years down the road?