History Channel
- Thread starter Agee
- Start date
Anything that gets young people interested in history and cultural literacy is A-OK with me.
Coventry17
New Member
Concur.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Speculative religious history is the current fad which means it will make money.Airgasm said:
Brings to mind:Penn said:
Sorry. Not part of the Bible. Heretical books.Nucklesack said:
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Airgasm said:
Every year at this time, Passover/Resurrection week, (easter), the nutcases come out from the pits. Last year it was the Davinci code, this year it was the bones of Jesus, the gospel of Judas and the mary magdalene thing! My advice to you each is to NEVER believe anything about religion that the Bible speaks against. If, what they say on the history channel agrees with what the Bbile says about Mary Mag, then believe it. Our days are coming to a close soon and the devil will work overtime to deceive as many as possible. Don't be one of them. Turn off the tube and open the Book.
Attachments
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
What was interesting, thinking back on last night's broadcast - "Something About Mary" - they also suggested that Mary Magdelene may well have been the "disciple that Jesus loved".
They used the following scripture - from John - to prove their point:
"But, standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene. [size=-2]19.26[/size] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" [size=-2]19.27[/size] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."
I don't see the rationale in those words, last night or today. The confusion, for me lies in the question - which Mary - did the "disciple that Jesus loved"
"take into his own home" were they referring to? There are, afterall, 3 Marys mentioned in that scripture.
They seemed to have liked to out a draw a relationship between Mary Magdelene and Jesus, more than the Gospels suggest, but it just isn't supported enough in them to make that distinction, as far as I can see.
They used the following scripture - from John - to prove their point:
"But, standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene. [size=-2]19.26[/size] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" [size=-2]19.27[/size] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."
I don't see the rationale in those words, last night or today. The confusion, for me lies in the question - which Mary - did the "disciple that Jesus loved"
"take into his own home" were they referring to? There are, afterall, 3 Marys mentioned in that scripture.
They seemed to have liked to out a draw a relationship between Mary Magdelene and Jesus, more than the Gospels suggest, but it just isn't supported enough in them to make that distinction, as far as I can see.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Be a sheep, don't question, don't do any research, just believe what you are told, write your check and come back next Sunday.ItalianScallion said:Every year at this time, Passover/Resurrection week, (easter), the nutcases come out from the pits. Last year it was the Davinci code, this year it was the bones of Jesus, the gospel of Judas and the mary magdalene thing! My advice to you each is to NEVER believe anything about religion that the Bible speaks against. If, what they say on the history channel agrees with what the Bbile says about Mary Mag, then believe it. Our days are coming to a close soon and the devil will work overtime to deceive as many as possible. Don't be one of them. Turn off the tube and open the Book.
You'd think after 2000 years human kind would be smarter and more secure in their own being than to believe in ficitional beings to give their existence meaning.
migtig
aka Mrs. Giant
Easter gets its name from the Teutonic goddess of spring and the dawn, whose name is spelled Oestre or Eastre (the origin of the word "east" comes from various Germanic, Austro-Hungarian words for dawn that share the root for the word "aurora" which means " to shine").ItalianScallion said:Every year at this time, Passover/Resurrection week, (easter), the nutcases come out from the pits. Last year it was the Davinci code, this year it was the bones of Jesus, the gospel of Judas and the mary magdalene thing! My advice to you each is to NEVER believe anything about religion that the Bible speaks against. If, what they say on the history channel agrees with what the Bbile says about Mary Mag, then believe it. Our days are coming to a close soon and the devil will work overtime to deceive as many as possible. Don't be one of them. Turn off the tube and open the Book.
Her chief symbols were the bunny (for fertility and because the Ancient Ones who worshipped her often saw the image of a rabbit in the full moon), and the egg (representing the cosmic egg of creation). This is where the customs of "Easter Eggs" and the "Easter Bunny" originated.
Guess maybe you should educate yourself more on your holiday before making blanket statements. :shrug:
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
itsbob said:
Point is, after studying the Bible, going to classes over it, discussing it with your pastors, and lay pastors, these people re-affirm there is nothing in our Bible that suggests what they were proposing last night.
When that won't work, they dig out those Gospels written by the Gnostics as proof of an alternative religious theory, or maybe two. Then they go back to the original Gospels, and try to show you somewhere in scripture that bears fruit to their findings: "There! There it is! I told you so!"
As I related in one of my last posts, it just does not make sense.
BTW, I don't have any problems with sheep, it tastes good; I just don't like having the wool pulled over my eyes.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Gnostics weren't an alternative religion, they were the religion Christianity plagiarized.. there messiah was crucified on a tree. Christ on a cross.. resurrection check.. and Gnostics pre-date Christianity.Penn said:Point is, after studying the Bible, going to classes over it, discussing it with your pastors, and lay pastors, these people re-affirm there is nothing in our Bible that suggests what they were proposing last night.
When that won't work, they dig out those Gospels written by the Gnostics as proof of an alternative religious theory, or maybe two. Then they go back to the original Gospels, and try to show you somewhere in scripture that bears fruit to their findings: "There! There it is! I told you so!"
As I related in one of my last posts, it just does not make sense.
BTW, I don't have any problems with sheep, it tastes good; I just don't like having the wool pulled over my eyes.
Between the two, I'd Gnostics have more a chance of being true than Christianity.. but both are on equal par with Scientology..
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
itsbob said:
However, I did not say the Gnostics were an alternative religion.
What I referred to was their theories about Christianity. Many of these Gnostic Gospels were written, I believe, after the original Four Gospels(Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.) They give an alternative take on the roles of Judas, Mary Magdelene, Peter, Thomas and other individuals of that time period.
We believe the writers of the individual books in the Holy Bible were inspired by God as to what they penned(or quilled) in their writings.
I'm not sure one can make the same statement concerning the Gnostics, and the inspiration of their writings, since they attributed different roles to these same individuals.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Penn said:
Penn, a child can see this. This is what happens when people listen to other influences such as the TV. Jesus saw His mother(only one Mary was His mother) and John always referred to himself in the third person as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Put these together and it's very simple. Jesus told John to take care of his grieving/ailing mother.
Last edited:
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
itsbob said:
Bob, I have done more and better research than most have about God and that's why I believe. Call Him a "fictional being" if you want but you'll have eternity to wish you hadn't. I challenge you to prove that He doesn't exist, my friend, and let me know what you came up with. I can clearly see that you haven't done any research, never read the entire Bible and you've believed what someone else told you. You have NO basis for truth in what you say. Be careful, your words will condemn you.
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
migtig said:
Migtig, I think I've found you out there in left field. Resurrection Sunday was put where it is for the same reason that Christmas Day was put on Dec.25th. Both were put there to cover up a pagan holiday. Christmas over the feast of saturnalia (the sun god) and Resurrection Sunday over eastre(the pagan god of fertility) as you pointed out. I know what easter stands for and that's why I don't call it easter. It's the same way the devil caused politically correct people to call it "spring break" instead of easter week as it used to be called. We got that week off in honor of Christ's resurrection back when I was in school. So who needs educating my dear?
