Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Forum Lobby The off-topic forum.


View Poll Results: Are you going to see Da Vinci Code when it comes out on the big screen?
Yes 27 71.05%
No 11 28.95%
Whats the Da Vinci Code??? 0 0%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #41  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:42 PM
redQueen's Avatar
redQueen redQueen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 02-01-06
Location: google's sandbox
Posts: 206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
nice! I just saw it with my brother today... will be watching it again on the weekend with the hubby sssshhhhh he's not suppose to know I've watched it LOL
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #42  
Old 05-18-2006, 12:08 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Well I'll be seeing it - the book/movie IS fiction. But the basic premise isn't. I work with Laurence Gardner and have spent years and years of research on the abundance of documentation that clearly shows Jesus was in fact married. Bible readers need to go back to the original textual material not read something put together for polictical reasons that suited the time. Reality won't go away just because you don't believe in it .

Tom Hanks has invited Laurence Gardner to speak at the UK Premier as he KNOWS the film is fiction but wants people to understand there is significant evidence and factual documentation for serious study.

Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-18-2006, 12:52 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Now there's the thing.

Some of the oldest scrolls known are the dead sea scrolls.

People for years questioned the bible's authenticity on how it could be accurate after all this time, it was bound to have many changes in it.

The dead sea scrolls showed this not to be the case. Granted, they are based on the Old Testament and not the new but it still shows now changes.

Well ok, if you want to be picky about it:

Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll
differ from the Masoretic Text.

10 letters = spelling differences

4 letters = stylistic changes

3 letters = added word for “light” (vs. 11)

If you believe that Jesus had a wife then I guess this would show up in the scrolls as Jesus is a biblical person whether you believe in the book or not.

People can try to read what they want in it, it is similar to the Bible Codes that people really want to hang on to. Is there any truth in them? Does that question really need an answer?
 
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:08 AM
Kalina's Avatar
Kalina Kalina is offline
aka Colleen
 
Join Date: 03-25-04
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by redQueen
nice! I just saw it with my brother today... will be watching it again on the weekend with the hubby sssshhhhh he's not suppose to know I've watched it LOL
That reminds me, I did the same thing with the X-Files movie, luckily for me I enjoyed the movie, so it wasn't terrible seeing it twice within days.
 
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:26 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The bible isn't accurate thats the problem - it has so many inconsistencies. And if the Old Testament is talking about the same god that the New Testament is, then either "god" went to anger manangement classes or they are two completely different 'beings'. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed alot of light on many of the banned subjects of the bible - reincarnation for example.

The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we are all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we're supposed to believe. But, for the most part, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda. This often becomes absolute dogma - teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals. With regard to the Church's attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring.

The 2nd-century chronicler Julius Africanus of Edessa recorded that, during the Jewish Revolt from AD 66, the Roman governor of Jerusalem instructed the troops that all Messianic records should be burned so as to prevent future access to the details of Jesus' family genealogy. He added, however, that "A few careful people had private records ... and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin". Africanus described these royal inheritors as the Desposyni - a hallowed style meaning Heirs of the Lord.

Subsequently, the Palestinian historian, Hegesippus, reported that in AD 81 (during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian) the execution of these family inheritors was ordered by Imperial decree. It was then later confirmed by Eusebius, the 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea, that they were hunted down and put to the sword - first by command of the Empire and then by the newly introduced Roman Church.

The writers were unanimous, however, in stating that although many of the Desposyni were seized, others became leaders of a Nazarene church movement that opposed the Church of Rome, with leaders who became the heads of their sects by way of a "strict dynastic progression". Hence, the required destruction of records was far from complete, and relevant documents were retained by Jesus' heirs, who brought the Messianic heritage from the Holy Land to the West.

Not only were sacraments and customary ritual reinterpreted, but the Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the newly designated 'male-only' establishment of the emergent hybrid Church. We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was compiled? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?

There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these (from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397.

The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus' own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St. Paul. Thomas and Philip, on the other hand, were among the original twelve, and yet the Gospels in their names were excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, they was sentenced to be destroyed. And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century.

Although many of these books were not rediscovered until the 20th century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.

So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider - the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. Indeed, the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. They state: "We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman - for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head".

This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus - women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleopas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.

Opps my message is too long LOL.
 
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:28 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Continued...

The Church was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests - a rule that became a law in 1138; a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become mothers, and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that caused such concern - a taboo subject which, at all costs, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.

We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures? It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example.

It is widely accepted that Jesus was born in a stable - but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no 'stable' mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born in a house.

So where did the 'stable' idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was 'laid in a manger' - and a manger was nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose. Why, then, has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region.

The original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was 'no room in the inn'. By the best translation it actually states that there was 'no place in the room' (that is: 'no topos in the kataluma'). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (a feeding-box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.

To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.

Christians are taught that Jesus' father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels. But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a "master craftsman" (rendered in Greek as 'ho tekton' from the Semitic term 'naggar'). The word 'carpenter' was simply a translator's concept of a craftsman - but the text actually denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.

Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus' mother Mary was a 'virgin'. It was the same in an early Latin text which referred to her as being a 'virgo', meaning nothing more than a young woman. To have meant the same thing as virgin does today, the Latin would have been 'virgo intacta' - that is to say, a young woman intact. Looking back beyond the Latin to the older documents, we discover that the word translated to 'virgo' (a young woman) was the Semitic word 'almah' which meant the very same - a young woman. It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been 'bethulah', not 'almah'.

Apart from such anomalies, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. In about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified his action in a letter, stating: "For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them - for not all true things are to be said to all men".

Even at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the early bishops wanted to teach! But what exactly was in this removed section of Mark? It was the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus - in the course of which the account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife.

Many scholars have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast. The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointings of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointings (as given in the Gospels) were two-and-a-half years apart.

Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an Anointed One. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.

In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas), and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table. In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus' feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.

Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was the cementing of the contract. In Jesus and Mary's case the second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.

Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected the dynasts against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract.

After the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her". But did the Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No they did not; they completely ignored Jesus' own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.

To the Nazarenes, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, with numerous churches dedicated to her in the Renaissance era. But the interesting fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron saint of wine-growers - the ultimate Grail guardian of the Vine.

Aspects of the Gospels can actually be followed outside the Bible. Even the crucifixion sentence of Jesus is mentioned in the Annals of Imperial Rome. We can now determine from chronological survey that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD 33, while the Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week prior to that. We also know that, at that stage, Mary Magdalene was three months pregnant - which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33.

As for Jesus' death on the cross, it is perfectly clear this was spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by a three-day excommunication rule that everybody in the 1st century would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was denounced, scourged and prepared for death by decree. For three days Jesus would have been nominally 'sick', with absolute 'death' coming on the fourth day. Prior to this he would be entombed (buried alive) in accordance with Jewish Council law - but during the first three days he could be raised or resurrected, as he had predicted would be the case.

Raisings and resurrections could only be performed by the High Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph Caiaphas (the very man who condemned Jesus), therefore the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the cross, culminating in "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" - and the appointed Father of the day was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.

During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a forward time change, and the Gospels explain that the land fell into darkness for three hours. The Hebrew lunarists made their change during the daytime, but the Nazarene solarists did not make their change until midnight. This explains why, according to the Gospel of Mark (which relates to lunar time), Jesus was crucified at the third hour, but in John (which uses solar time) he was crucified at the sixth hour.

On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o'clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go before their Sabbath. During those extra three hours they were able to work with Jesus while others were not allowed to undertake any physical activity. It was for this reason that the women were so astonished when they found the tomb-stone moved at daybreak on the Sunday - not because it was moved, but because it had been moved on the Sabbath.

And so we come to one of the most misunderstood events in the Bible - the Ascension. And in consideration of this, the births of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children become apparent.

We know from Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before the Crucifixion (at the time of the March Passover). Also that, at that stage, Mary was three-months pregnant and should, therefore, have given birth six months later in the notional month of September AD 33. The story is taken up in the Acts of the Apostles, which detail for that month the event which we have come to know as the Ascension.

One thing which the Acts do not do, however, is to call the event the Ascension. This was a tag established by way of a Church doctrine more than three centuries later. What the Bible text actually says is: "And when he had spoken these things ... he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight".
 
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:29 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Last part... (thank heavens they say)

It then continues, relating that a man in white said to the disciples: "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus ... shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go". Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that heaven must receive Jesus until 'the times of restitution'.

Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene's child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary's confinement and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made by virtue of the said 'times of restitution'.

Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births of heirs would always fall in the month equivalent to September - the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the calendar.

From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at designated 'times of restitution'. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom was the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed leader of the pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly leader of the pilgrims was designated with the title Cloud.

So, if we read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the leader of the pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the times of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).

If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to that sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the family of Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".

In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. With the period between the first and second births being just four years, we know that the first child was a daughter. The period from the second birth to the next time of restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. Subsequent information reveals that the third child was also a son.

Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).

From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in Provence, especially in the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story was suppressed by the Vatican in the 16th century.

The Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the sacred vessel of the 'vas uterus'. And so, when fleeing into Gaul, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal (the nectar of supreme excellence) in the sacred chalice of her womb.

From this point in the 1st century, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, takes up the individual stories of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their offspring, following their descendants through the course of their turbulent history, which led to the great Inquisition and beyond.

It is an account of Messianic descent against which the bishops' only recourse was to denigrate the position of women in its ecclesiastical structure. Throughout this history, however, Grail lore has always been consistent in its social prediction that only when the Messianic wound has been healed, will the wasteland return to fertility.

Sorry I'll stop my ranting now... I'm very passionate about the subject but this obviously isn't a "Was Jesus Married" forum so I'll shut up .

I do think that the christains of today really are missing out on something very special, Jesus was so much more than the "man made" biblical interpretation they present him in. And Mary.... well I just love the old original meaning for the word "Harlot".. which was "dearly beloved one". Yep they really screwed with that meaning LOL.

Sorry for going on so long... as I said I'm passionate about this subject... but I'll leave it alone..

Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:42 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%
But women are portrayed as important in the bible as there are even female prophets who have been involved with writing the book.

The old testament is basically older laws and discusses the Davidical lineage leading up to the birth of Jesus. As I mentioned, it does lay down a lot of older laws and discusses history of nations such as Israel but this is mostly showing the lineage.

The new testament, or to put it another way, when Jesus arrived, he cancelled out a lot of the old laws as he discussed with his disciples and that is why the change in laws occured.

Let's face it, if he did exist and was the son of god, then if anyone could alter the laws, it would be him

I do not follow a religion, I was just part of a team that studied it years ago.
 
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:06 AM
perhaps's Avatar
perhaps perhaps is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 05-12-06
Location: cebu city phils.
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
purely fiction! that's right!!! so, what's the fuss? i'm a CHRISTIAN and i'm certainly gonna watch it! it's just a matter of testing how great our faith is...hope, we'll pass!!! good luck pipz...
 
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:12 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So Jesus cancelled out his "fathers" laws . So those laws by "god" were wrong. And wrong they were too, morally, ethically and certainly not "godly". Yes women were so imporant they were not allowed to speak in Church . and were on equal terms with Oxen. I've always wondered why I had this tail . No wonder I was dismissed (a kind way of saying thrown out) of Sunday School at about 4 years old. "I asked too many questions they said - and we don't have the answers" LOL.

Sorry for wasting to much time on this - I'm finished I promise.

Nuff Said
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:41 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%


Nothing to do with the laws being wrong, this is just what you are assuming due to the old laws being re-written

I understand your views on religion and the way they hold to the teachings that they have twisted and which on part are wrong. I don't believe a lot of what they say either and am with you on that.

BTW - As what you say isn't in the bible or even in scrolls and as for not being approved by the curch councils, what was?

Wasn't it churches that tried to get every single bible burnt in William Tyndales time and he was burnt for translating it into our readable language?

Lot's of bibles were not destroyed and are still in existence today and what you say is not in them and yet they were destroyed for what they contained.

Yours is an interesting theory but one that does not hold water in my eyes, just like mine doesn't to you

Shame you had to cut and paste your theory word for word from THIS

Next time, just post the URL as it would be a lot easier than cutting and pasting the stuff

Last edited by G10; 05-18-2006 at 02:48 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:18 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think you need to read the old Testament again to see some of those laws and what god "commanded" they do. No way can you rewrite any of those to make them "right" in any sense of the word.

When the bible was "first" put together every one "should" by now know they left out so many gospels. You can't pick and choose "gods" word - it's either all or none. But they did choose and left out so many pieces of the jigsaw it's no wonder people haven't a clue. The gospels there were left out are copied and at various places - the vatican library has all the copies which you can get access you can read them.

Then there are the old manuscripts, and other earlier works. An enourmous volume of evidence.

As for your last para - I work with Laurence Gardner as I said before - I DID THAT LECTURE, in fact the original one was much longer than that! Thats the shortened version.

I'm not going to play ping pong with someone who hasn't done his research - and by research I don't mean reading a few books or transcripts... REAL research - real digging around in ancient archives in different countries. Things that haven't been opened for over 1000 years.

This is a waste of time obviously.

Over-N-Out
 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:35 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%
I am curous as to how you know I have done no research on this?

What is my knowledge and what studies have I done?

Is it that I disagree with you that it means that I know very little of this field?

You say I know very little but yet my posts are my own words which means I must at least know a miniscule amount . I just wanted to hear it in your own words as that is what makes a discussion more interesting, I did not want to read 3 posts from someone else's mouth.

BTW - I do not trust the vatican historical archives because if they know less about the bible as an Atheist - If they knew it, they would follow it but they don't.
 
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:40 AM
yfs1's Avatar
yfs1 yfs1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-25-06
Location: Ireland
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Not to get off topic but I saw it yesterday...It was so bad it was painful (And I thought the book was OK-Good)

Back to the debate
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:47 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
Rankenstein Rankenstein is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Well, I thought the book was the perfect airport novel - a badly-written potboiler pageturner. I think I am actually diminished for having read it.

I expected the film would be pretty good - Tom Hanks films are usually worth seeing I think - but judging by the comments here I think I won't bother going to see it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:48 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10
BTW - I do not trust the vatican historical archives because if they know less about the bible as an Atheist - If they knew it, they would follow it but they don't.
LOL thats the first thing we agree on. God they're truely are pathetic... bunch of anal retentive pieces of bum fluff really . I've always wondered about that smoke they have coming out when a new pope is being decided on... are they burning the competition LOL. Mind you you'd be surprised at what you find in their archives... but why is everything in the building "pink"

I'm finished - I bow down to your knowledge base and learnered research - you're right I'm right.. oh I mean wrong .

Off to bed to tired for more forum ping pong.

Nice chatting with you.

Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:51 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10
I do not follow a religion, I was just part of a team that studied it years ago.
BTW you said it not me .

Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:54 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%
I just got up not that long ago and what a thread to throw myself in first thing

Nice chatting with you too Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:55 AM
kiwidesigner's Avatar
kiwidesigner kiwidesigner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-29-04
Posts: 177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by yfs1
Not to get off topic but I saw it yesterday...It was so bad it was painful (And I thought the book was OK-Good)

Back to the debate
Yes I've heard mixed reviews about it. Some say it's too slow. I'll probably see it next week sometime. I'll be sure and take my Holy Water .

Karen
 
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-18-2006, 03:58 AM
yfs1's Avatar
yfs1 yfs1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-25-06
Location: Ireland
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwidesigner
I've heard mixed reviews about it.
There were good ones
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Way to Code a PSD to CSS? Fruit & Veg Coding Forum 3 08-10-2007 06:33 AM
How to code PSD ? ilu Coding Forum 8 03-12-2007 08:19 PM
CSS code daniel0012 Coding Forum 4 03-12-2007 11:15 AM
BB code url markov Web Design Lobby 1 11-03-2006 08:13 PM
Google Code Search - Code Search Engine from the Big G Avinash Coding Forum 2 10-05-2006 10:10 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC