Dedicated to co-founders and beginners - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Prove otherwise that nothing was taken away at the council, I have no confidence in those who used violence...
Actually, negative theses are not provable, shame on you for not knowing. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the thesis.
Otherwise you might as well be asked to prove you are not a camel.
But as an exception, especially for your sake, I will give you 3 arguments that can make you think.
1) The earliest copies of the Gospels have come down to us. Earlier than the Council of Nicaea. Consequently, one would expect to find "excised fragments" there - but no.
2) The writings of the early Church Fathers - 1st-2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc. have come down to us. One would expect to find references to "reincarnation" and other such things in their writings, but - again, no.
3) Violence, alas, has always been used by all. The state is happy to use any ideology, any doctrine, if it believes it will benefit it.
>> Spain having adopted Catholicism has "distinguished itself" by bonfires of Inquisition, Germany having adopted neopagan theosophical ideas has arranged the World War II, USSR with atheistic ideology has arranged Gulag -- in general, any worldview has been used for evil in its time.
At the Council of Nicaea in 325, in order to satisfy the dogma of the divinity of Jesus, the canon of Holy Scripture was made up without books such as the "Gospel of Mary", which speaks of the great role of Mary Magdalene in the ministry of Jesus. And he himself appears less as the "Son of God" than as a spiritual teacher and mentor on the path of self-development.
And why do you think the Gnostic apocryphal "Gospel of Mary" deserves to be included in the canon?
The work originated in the Gnostic milieu about a century and a half(!) after Mary passed away. The main themes, ideas, language of the work are typically Gnostic. Since the text is preserved in Coptic, scholars believe that the anonymous author was a representative of Alexandrian Gnosticism.
Actually, negative theses are not proven, shame on you for not knowing. The burden of proof is on the one who puts forward the thesis.
Otherwise, you might as well be asked to prove that you are not a camel.
But as an exception, especially for your sake, I will give you 3 arguments that can make you think.
What do you want me to think about?
That I'm embarrassing myself by posting a quote that doesn't cite old christian sources?
or that your mystical experience allows you to assert your thesis?
Or are you just a dogmatist? So drink your poison.
it is believed that in the main texts of Christianity - the Gospels of the New Testament there are repeated references to reincarnation (Mark 9:11-13, Matthew 17:10-13, John 9:1-3, 34)[i]. It is also known that the Gnostics, who played an important role in the early centuries of Christianity (for example, one of the Gnostic teachers of the early second century, Valentine, was nominated for the post of bishop of Rome), were proponents of reincarnation.
And why do you think the Gnostic apocrypha "Gospel of Mary" deserves to be included in the canon?
This work originated in the Gnostic milieu about a century and a half(!) after Mary passed away. The main themes, ideas, language of the work are typically Gnostic. Since the text has been preserved in Coptic, scholars believe that the anonymous author was a representative of Alexandrian Gnosticism.
Most scholars agree that in the 4th century, when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, church hierarchs actively sought to limit the leading role of women in Christian communities.
Conservative theologians are of the opinion that such texts were compiled in heretic congregations and have no primary source meaning. And all attempts to elevate the role of women in the churches in apostolic times to that of the twelve associates of Christ have no justification whatsoever. Their role was always secondary. Furthermore, no mention of Mary Magdalene's active ministry can be found in the biblical materials. Moreover, in the 5th century, already after the Council of Nicaea, Pope Gregory the Great in his Easter sermon called Mary Magdalene the embodiment of sinfulness. According to him, the prostitute mentioned in the Gospel of John in the chapter eight is Mary Magdalene. It could be said that in those days Christianity was finally saying goodbye to feminism.
What do you want me to think about?
That I have shamed myself by posting a quotation whose author did not provide accurate references to old Christian sources?
It's good that you understand that. I hope next time you'll be more careful in your choice of sources.
Something tells me, however, that this hope is futile.
Or that your mystical experience allows you to assert your theses?
Or are you just an unhappy dogmatist?
Oh, here comes the personality shift. I can't help it when there's no argument.
You're off the hook.
it is believed that in the main texts of Christianity, the Gospels of the New Testament, there are repeated references to reincarnation (Mark 9:11-13, Matthew 17:10-13, John 9:1-3, 34). The multiple existence of man is reported in the Gospel of Thomas (see below), a text which appeared earlier than the canonical Gospels, not later than the middle of the first century A.D. It is also known that the Gnostics, who played a significant role in the first centuries of Christianity (for example, one of the Gnostic teachers of the early second century, Valentine, was nominated for bishop of Rome), were supporters of reincarnation.
There is an opinion, no one is arguing. How well-founded it is is another question. One can seriously discuss this subject, but certainly not here and not on this level. The references to the Gnostics who drew their information from the Egyptian Mysteries are not relevant at all.
Most scholars agree that in the 4th century, when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, church hierarchs actively tried to limit the leading role of women in Christian communities.
Conservative theologians hold the view that such texts were compiled in heretic congregations and have no value as primary sources. And all attempts to elevate the role of women in the churches in apostolic times to that of the twelve associates of Christ have no justification whatsoever. Their role was always of secondary importance.
Yeah, there is an icon of the Virgin Mary in every temple and Mary Magdalene is called EQUAL :-)
That's it, gentlemen, I'm done. I don't see the point in continuing this argument any further. Once again, I apologise for the off-topic.It is good that you have understood that. I hope you will be more careful in your choice of sources next time.
However, something tells me that hope is futile.
Imho, you wanted to fuck with your erudition.
In the context of this thread, the quote I posted seemed perfectly innocuous.
The purpose of the quote was to point out the arbitrariness of those in power.
I don't know the author of the quote to ask him about his sources.
No, you should have fucked with me, take it out on me.
>> so drink some poison, nasty.
to sabluk
the state is violence
"Dr" = doctor is the source of diagnosis
"nasty" in feminist parlance means offering love
to sabluk
the state is violence
"dr" = doctor is the source of the diagnosis
>> "nasty" in feminist parlance means offer of love
What diagnosis are we talking about?
>> dr. Dolittle let him cure the animals.
>> I don't know the language of feminists.
Arguing about sources? Well, well. What can we say about the reliability of these sources, if both their composition and their contents have been repeatedly rewritten and bought up by both interested and simply not very literate persons? This is, excuse me, not a Newton-Leibniz formula, which cannot be distorted in any way ...
2 Korey: formost of history since A.D. zero, the state and the church have been one (if they were Christian). The conclusion is obvious. The church obviously could not help but take advantage of such power for its own purposes.
I see the value of biblical sources solely in the content of the Bible - irrespective of the truth/falsity of what is written there and the historical information pertaining to it. At one time I read the New Testament in English (King James) and admired the language and style of presentation.
I doubt that rational knowledge (or so called scientific knowledge) can convert anyone to the Christian faith.
to Mathemat
There are many translations available.
I can advise you to find a Bible where the Book of Genesis (where the creation of the world is) contains information about Lilith.
...Lilith did not recognise Adam over herself because they were created equal.
Adam became bored and failed to fulfil the commandment "be fruitful and multiply".
Eve was then created from his rib.
...
This version of the Bible was hardly ever censored.
well the old testament is really LOL ))))
children should read bedtime stories.
it's easier to believe in planets than in some Adam and Eve.
I saw a UFO myself once and my dad was in the missile forces... the UFO grazes in such places and makes provocations with technology