Da Vinci Code

[Pointman]

if u a catholic (like me)  you should check out the origin of easter (and perhaps some other feast days, i ent sure), how they get the dates and so on...is alot of pagan stuff we still using.

That is true. We must stop thinking that "God" decided to make these days sacred. Anyone who is a christian should at least examine the origins of Christianity. Jesus was not a christian. Neither were his disciples. This is true because Christianity was brought into existence 300-400 years after the "so-called" christ died. Also, the letter "J" did not exist during the Jesus' times. In fact the name "Jesus" is actually latin for "Zeus". In fact  Latino people who name their sons "Jesus" pronounce it as "hey-zeus". 
If you dont believe me check it out. Or post if you need more info.
 

Two things:

1) True the letter "J" is not used in Hebrew or Aramaic so all names that we know that have it's roots in Semetic languages like Jesus or Joseph or Judah all begin with "Y" in Hebrew. So Jesus would Yesua; Joseph is Yosef(my son's name ) and Judah is Yehuda.

2) Dubious that the name Jesus came from the Greek "Zeus" . Two very seperate and distinct people groups.

[Quags]

good one RM ,I didn"t even notice  .
But what he implying is huge ,because the more u pray to these beings ,the more powerfull there get
so if ppl being praying to zeus for hundred of years ,crapuad smoke we pipe. this what i found on the name.

   http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[ribbit]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

[morvant]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

look at de blasted word i use b4 you tell me to study my history. what yuh think i doing??? yuh feel i dont know columbus story.(his father-in-law used him as a pawn to establish dominance) and all this about africa being the first on earth iz crap because pangea is still a possibility in my opinion, and the remains were found there.and you say they were travelling to america, if so wernt they visiting people for trade??? i may not have read the book yuh talkin bout but i read books like that but the date the chineese were using ships is more realistic IMO. if i die in america does that mean i was born there??? no i traveled there so wheeeeeeeel and come again

[Dutty]

De sad ting is so much history the world over get changed and lorse

A lot of history truly does become his story, depending on who wrote it...even though a lot of it might be inaccurate

As an example Look at all dese library books & documents in Mali,, around since the 11th/ 12th century maybe further back...turning literally to dust...never to be restored
And that is just scratching the surface of lost knowledge that has since been 'replaced'






The link to  one of the original universities
http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/university.html

[Pointman]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

Definitely Africans, it's already proven

[ribbit]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

Definitely Africans, it's already proven

proven? - beyond the introduction of any new evidence? i don't see how this is possible. we are learning new things about our past every day. scientific evidence unearths new details all the time.

logically there are two conditions that are required to prove this:

1) the existence that africans were the earliest to travel the globe

2) the non-existence that all non-africans did not travel the globe earlier than all africans

the second condition is the difficult part to prove. some future archeologist might discover something that will date the earliest travel to some other source - say chinese or some south pacific islander.

i've read that archaelogical finds of prehistoric human in china are as old as anything found in africa. based on this, i'm proposing that we don't know enough to conclude anything about that period of history.

i have a friend that went on an archaelogical dig in ethiopia several years back - that area is one of the easiest places to find bones and old stuff - something to do with the churning of the plates that brings alot of this stuff to the surface. in this sense, archaelogists have an easier job delving into humankind's past in africa than other places. maybe future technology will allow other parts of the globe to be explored more systematically to tell us more about our history. but i don't think any strong statement can be made about who travelled the globe first at this time.

[Pointman]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

Definitely Africans, it's already proven

proven? - beyond the introduction of any new evidence? i don't see how this is possible. we are learning new things about our past every day. scientific evidence unearths new details all the time.

logically there are two conditions that are required to prove this:

1) the existence that africans were the earliest to travel the globe

2) the non-existence that all non-africans did not travel the globe earlier than all africans

the second condition is the difficult part to prove. some future archeologist might discover something that will date the earliest travel to some other source - say chinese or some south pacific islander.

i've read that archaelogical finds of prehistoric human in china are as old as anything found in africa. based on this, i'm proposing that we don't know enough to conclude anything about that period of history.

i have a friend that went on an archaelogical dig in ethiopia several years back - that area is one of the easiest places to find bones and old stuff - something to do with the churning of the plates that brings alot of this stuff to the surface. in this sense, archaelogists have an easier job delving into humankind's past in africa than other places. maybe future technology will allow other parts of the globe to be explored more systematically to tell us more about our history. but i don't think any strong statement can be made about who travelled the globe first at this time.

When I say "proven" I mean "proven". To date "Lucy" or "Dinknesh"(her African name) is the oldest Human remains found . She is millions of years old and was found in Ethiopia.

Also, nature does not replicate itself meaning it is not likely that there could be seperate human groups "created"(for lack of a better word) in nature. Basically all Humans come from one human female ancestor, all equine come from one ancestor, all pacederm(sp) come from one ancestrol pacederm, all feline all canine etc come from one ancestor of that particular species and the environment is what causes them to change and evolve.
 
It is now accepted in the scientific community that human beings started in Africa and as these peoples spread out throughout the globe their phenotypes changed because of different climatic conditions but it's just a superficial change for the most part.

It is proven that African genes/traits are a dominant trait and all others for the most part, are recessive traits especially skin color, eye color and hair texture.

All of this is not to make one group seem more important than any other just to display the facts. We are ALL family. We are ALL connected.

[ribbit]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

Definitely Africans, it's already proven

proven? - beyond the introduction of any new evidence? i don't see how this is possible. we are learning new things about our past every day. scientific evidence unearths new details all the time.

logically there are two conditions that are required to prove this:

1) the existence that africans were the earliest to travel the globe

2) the non-existence that all non-africans did not travel the globe earlier than all africans

the second condition is the difficult part to prove. some future archeologist might discover something that will date the earliest travel to some other source - say chinese or some south pacific islander.

i've read that archaelogical finds of prehistoric human in china are as old as anything found in africa. based on this, i'm proposing that we don't know enough to conclude anything about that period of history.

i have a friend that went on an archaelogical dig in ethiopia several years back - that area is one of the easiest places to find bones and old stuff - something to do with the churning of the plates that brings alot of this stuff to the surface. in this sense, archaelogists have an easier job delving into humankind's past in africa than other places. maybe future technology will allow other parts of the globe to be explored more systematically to tell us more about our history. but i don't think any strong statement can be made about who travelled the globe first at this time.

When I say "proven" I mean "proven". To date "Lucy" or "Dinknesh"(her African name) is the oldest Human remains found . She is millions of years old and was found in Ethiopia.

Also, nature does not replicate itself meaning it is not likely that there could be seperate human groups "created"(for lack of a better word) in nature. Basically all Humans come from one human female ancestor, all equine come from one ancestor, all pacederm(sp) come from one ancestrol pacederm, all feline all canine etc come from one ancestor of that particular species and the environment is what causes them to change and evolve.
 
It is now accepted in the scientific community that human beings started in Africa and as these peoples spread out throughout the globe their phenotypes changed because of different climatic conditions but it's just a superficial change for the most part.

It is proven that African genes/traits are a dominant trait and all others for the most part, are recessive traits especially skin color, eye color and hair texture.

All of this is not to make one group seem more important than any other just to display the facts. We are ALL family. We are ALL connected.

an interesting reference. this whole concept of african, asian, and whatever is really artificial isn't it. we ARE all connected.

[football prof]

The letter or the sound "J" was not used in Jesus' times. His name was Yashua in hebrew/aramic. During this period Europeans were worshipping a god called "Seraphus" or "Serafis" which was originally Zeus. This god Seraphus was the cheif deity of that religion. He was the animal god. In Greek mythology zeus is the chief deity the same way Jesus is the chief deity in Christianity. In Greek mythology "Zeus" was depicted as the animal god. and was always showing up as an animal thats where we get the word "Zoo" which has to do with animals.

I was not implying that latinos speak latin, but what do you think spanish is. Spanish, French Italian, Portuguese are all "Romance" based languages. They were originally latin and evolved into spanish, french Italian etc..
In fact the roots of many words are the same in many "romance" or latin based languages.


For some who dont know the bible was composed of other scripts such as gilgamesh epics and the egyptian book of the dead. The Bible was written in greek and latin. And was translated from those languages into english and other languages. The story of Christ is a symbolic Egyptian/Kemetic" based story. If you seen the Da-vinci code you will know that the story of Jesus is a Egyptian/Kemetic story for the "Sun" passing through the 12 months of the year. When this story of the "sun" came into the hands of the europeans they made that particular story into the Jesus and 12 disciples.

Its cool that some of us could engage in coversations like this and critique what is said, but if you are not that "educated" you should not imply that someone else is not. I am speaking to the person who claimed said that I was implying that latinos speak latin. If you had any knowledge you would know that latinos speak spanish which is rooted latin.

Big up Pointman, its good to hear from someone who has rejected the conventional history and has pursued world/African history. Are you a scholar? if so we need to build partner.

I notice that people get offended when they hear that Africa is really the cradle of human civilization.

[Quags]

Your contradicting yourself my friend, IN the first line you say in jesus times and his name was Yashua.
Then in third paragraph ,you say it"s a Egyptian story,which is it
Anyway good luck with that ,am an  ,cause I don"t like the alternative lol.

But the last few post really comes down to wether you follow evolutionary opposed to creationary ,
teachings.I personally prefer the rewards of the latter  . And all this history and discoveries comes from
some of the scientist and reserchers connected to the previously mentioned societies  ,so again good luck with that.

Again I have never heard of Jesus = Egyptian connection,Have heard the noah story being connected to older ones.So again to much headache please site some authors ,sure there illuminati ,lol.

Another thing don"t get tied up with Egypthian ,they did not build the pyramids,and those stories, are connected to fallen angels and there children the giants 

[Dutty]

Your contradicting yourself my friend, IN the first line you say in jesus times and his name was Yashua.
Then in third paragraph ,you say it"s a Egyptian story,which is it
Anyway good luck with that ,am an  ,cause I don"t like the alternative lol.

But the last few post really comes down to wether you follow evolutionary opposed to creationary ,
teachings.I personally prefer the rewards of the latter  . And all this history and discoveries comes from
some of the scientist and reserchers connected to the previously mentioned societies  ,so again good luck with that.

Again I have never heard of Jesus = Egyptian connection,Have heard the noah story being connected to older ones.So again to much headache please site some authors ,sure there illuminati ,lol.

Another thing don"t get tied up with Egypthian ,they did not build the pyramids,and those stories, are connected to fallen angels and there children the giants 

Que??

[football prof]

Your contradicting yourself my friend, IN the first line you say in jesus times and his name was Yashua.
Then in third paragraph ,you say it"s a Egyptian story,which is it
Anyway good luck with that ,am an  ,cause I don"t like the alternative lol.

But the last few post really comes down to wether you follow evolutionary opposed to creationary ,
teachings.I personally prefer the rewards of the latter  . And all this history and discoveries comes from
some of the scientist and reserchers connected to the previously mentioned societies  ,so again good luck with that.

Again I have never heard of Jesus = Egyptian connection,Have heard the noah story being connected to older ones.So again to much headache please site some authors ,sure there illuminati ,lol.

Another thing don"t get tied up with Egypthian ,they did not build the pyramids,and those stories, are connected to fallen angels and there children the giants 

I know it sounds like a contradiction, but I was using Jesus' time to explain the context in which I was speaking about. What I should have said is biblical times instead of Jesus' times.

The symbolic "Jesus" is the "sun". Yashua is the hebrew/aramic name. Yashua is also symbolic and was a personification of the sun.

The egyptian/kemetic story of the "sun" became the story of the "son" of god.

Ashra Kwesi is a researcher who has done phenomenal research into this. Google his name and you will be able to find some good references to what I am speaking about.
It is hard to explain these things because it requires a background and understanding of pre-western history and  religion.

I never said that egyptians built the pyramids. The present day egyptians are not responsible for building the pyramids. In "they came before columbus" by Ivan van Sertima, he spoke about the origins of the egyptian/kemites. He did say that the kemites are responsible for building the pyramids.
David Icke did say that fallen angels and/or the "Anunakai" built the pyramids. But this is academic racism. Because this theory does not want to acknowledge that man had the intelligence to create the pyramids. If we were to acknowledge that man were responsible for building the pyramids, then the question would be If these pyramids are in Africa then  black/African people must have had this higher intelligence to build these pyramids.
 
Here are my refernces,
Ashra Kwesi "African presence in Chrsitianity",
Ivan van Sertima "They came before Columbus",
Joseph Ben Yochanan "The black man and the Nile",
Rudolph Windsor " From Babylon to Timbuktu "

I posted my references so post your compre.

[Quags]

Professor boy you"s ah classic yes,But i really not saying anything as controversial ,as to site sources,your
rite the Icke book for the Anunakia.But i find it hard to beleive they made the pyramids before the wheel
Right now am getting ready for tomorrow,
Al check out out these ppl tho ,           to be continued :beermug

[football prof]

Professor boy you"s ah classic yes,But i really not saying anything as controversial ,as to site sources,your
rite the Icke book for the Anunakia.But i find it hard to beleive they made the pyramids before the wheel
Right now am getting ready for tomorrow,no time but anything I say uyou"ll just say is black ppl really do
it and you""ll quote a black author ,and say the white author lying. no horrors 
           to be continued

Of course no horrors. This is about knowledge, not about getting vex with one another. For one I was not saying that David Icke is lying.
If you want to believe that "giants" and "fallen angels" built the pyramids and not understand the stories symbolic value (for instance the word angel is greek for messenger) then thats find with me.

You made a good point about the wheel. But that does not mean that the wheel or concept of "wheelness" did not exist before it was documented. Dont rule out the possibility that the human race might have been more advanced 8000 years ago than today. In fact  David Icke(white researcher) acknowledges this. 
 
  This is all love brotha. Gone to watch the game!

[real madness]

football prof,
i was on kicks regarding the statement that latinos speak latin..didnt u see the smiley face...don't be an a$4 and talk about education like u have the most...education comes in all forms and everybody is educated because education is not measured by degrees only which I have by the way.

[football prof]

Oh ok brotha, sorry I took offense to that. But it is ok, I know this is a knowledge thing, so no hard feelings.

I not trying to show off anything, a degree is nothing if you cant incorporate it into reality. I am very passionate about this topic.  10 years ago i used to read various books about this. When I used to tell people they used to laugh or even say that this is crazy talk. Its funny that these things are being revealed today and there are still many doubters.

One love

[Pointman]

this aint the first time i hearing bout europe running america

but dan the chineese had ships wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssss b4 the europeans so i believe they were the first to travel the globe

Study your history before you make another remark like that. Africans are and were the first people on the earth. Africans were travelling to america and across the world hundreds and possibly even thousands of years ago. There is a book by a Guyanese man of African descent called "They came before Columbus". It debunks the "conventional history"  that we were taught to believe.

from what i've read this is only partially correct. there is evidence of 4 river valleys from which the origins of humankind be traced. they correspond roughly (from memory) to the yangtze, the nile, the tigris-euphrates and the indus. who knows who was the first to travel the globe?

Definitely Africans, it's already proven

proven? - beyond the introduction of any new evidence? i don't see how this is possible. we are learning new things about our past every day. scientific evidence unearths new details all the time.

logically there are two conditions that are required to prove this:

1) the existence that africans were the earliest to travel the globe

2) the non-existence that all non-africans did not travel the globe earlier than all africans

the second condition is the difficult part to prove. some future archeologist might discover something that will date the earliest travel to some other source - say chinese or some south pacific islander.

i've read that archaelogical finds of prehistoric human in china are as old as anything found in africa. based on this, i'm proposing that we don't know enough to conclude anything about that period of history.

i have a friend that went on an archaelogical dig in ethiopia several years back - that area is one of the easiest places to find bones and old stuff - something to do with the churning of the plates that brings alot of this stuff to the surface. in this sense, archaelogists have an easier job delving into humankind's past in africa than other places. maybe future technology will allow other parts of the globe to be explored more systematically to tell us more about our history. but i don't think any strong statement can be made about who travelled the globe first at this time.

When I say "proven" I mean "proven". To date "Lucy" or "Dinknesh"(her African name) is the oldest Human remains found . She is millions of years old and was found in Ethiopia.

Also, nature does not replicate itself meaning it is not likely that there could be seperate human groups "created"(for lack of a better word) in nature. Basically all Humans come from one human female ancestor, all equine come from one ancestor, all pacederm(sp) come from one ancestrol pacederm, all feline all canine etc come from one ancestor of that particular species and the environment is what causes them to change and evolve.
 
It is now accepted in the scientific community that human beings started in Africa and as these peoples spread out throughout the globe their phenotypes changed because of different climatic conditions but it's just a superficial change for the most part.

It is proven that African genes/traits are a dominant trait and all others for the most part, are recessive traits especially skin color, eye color and hair texture.

All of this is not to make one group seem more important than any other just to display the facts. We are ALL family. We are ALL connected.

an interesting reference. this whole concept of african, asian, and whatever is really artificial isn't it. we ARE all connected.

Rabbit, thanks for the link, I would therefore revise my age for "Lucy" to less than a few millions.

[Feliziano]

ah cant belive ah miss this thread yes lol..like Pioneer really get kidnapped lol
this was some interesting reading.

ah have some questions btw lol

1. So Jesus was married and had children?
2. So thats why the Bible missing all the things Jesus did in early adulthood?
3. What them missing books in the Bible contain?
4. Did Africa exist back then?..i mean as a race
5. Football prof..Wouldn't it have been better to say 'man from that continent' were the first to travel etc, since everybody was the same color back then?..sounds like yuh trying to score points for yuh tribe there lol
6. So who exactly built the Pyramids?
7. What bout crop circles?

[TrinInfinite]

From what I have read and studied, it does not have concrete proof the lord and saviour had a wife, they claim magdellene was his wife by saying the beloved apostle was magdellene, however was magdellene an apostle? When Jesus referred to his apostles, it was the 12 male apostles he referred, magdellene was a believer but not an apostle chosen by Christ. They go on to say that this has been changed, claiming in some instances that Jesus was referred to as rabbi, so it would be easy to assume he had a wife.

I beg to differ, not because I am a christian, but because the mission of Christ was clear, as it was for Paul, as Paul said it is better not to marry but if you are burning with lust, then you should marry. None of the apostles were married by any accounts, so why would Christ? When the spirit came upon paul and he spoke it was with spiritual conviction to carry on the word, bc Jesus was the word, being the perfect man, indulging in sins of the flesh would defeat the purpose of his mission to come into the flesh to take away the sins of adam by being crucified..

God is de BOSS...

i would like to hear other opinions?

[Andre]

i Catholic but sometimes i is find mihself doubting what written in the Bible. i find it hard to see how God could decreee somethings that men claim He did.

check this book if allyuh have time. i believe the link to the ebook download working.



When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus’s words or Saint Paul’s writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.


Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes — alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.


http://rapidshare.de/files/24478492/misquot.zip.html

[TrinInfinite]

i Catholic but sometimes i is find mihself doubting what written in the Bible. i find it hard to see how God could decreee somethings that men claim He did.

check this book if allyuh have time. i believe the link to the ebook download working.



When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus’s words or Saint Paul’s writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.


Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes — alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.


http://rapidshare.de/files/24478492/misquot.zip.html

 there are many contradictions in the bible, but you must focus on the message of christ, which is the most important element of the bible, the underlying values and morals, in my studies i also found many discrepencies but it doesnt take away from the message of christ... when you search you will find...

[Mr Fix-it]

Well, that was a read  I like where this is going but I want to know moreeeeeeeeeeeeee...I am RC and I do believe in de one living god.  I try not to read into all these groups but in our growing times I can't help but think, why de fu*k dis happening or where is it all going. 

[Andre]

i is find mihself losing faith in the Catholic church when i see all these priest bulling young boy yes.

i is go to a church when i down in miami where it have young priest in training. them and the priests in the church itself is move real effeminate. so what going on here?

anyhow, why priest can't marry? why suppress a God given instinct?

man is make religious doctrine yes. not God.

[Mr Fix-it]

i is find mihself losing faith in the Catholic church when i see all these priest bulling young boy yes.

i is go to a church when i down in miami where it have young priest in training. them and the priests in the church itself is move real effeminate. so what going on here?

anyhow, why priest can't marry? why suppress a God given instinct?

man is make religious doctrine yes. not God.

I doh lose nothing, b/c it isn't me doing de wrong.  We all have to pay de piper once de song done.

[OutsideMan]

Would someone explain the meanings of:

Mason and a member of the illuminati
is it like a lodge ?

So damn interesting.





if some fool say look it up...i'll cuss.

look it up 

The masons are a secret society, usually people who have influence, status or who are well connected are members. They kinda look out for each other and do buisness. and u can claim up it in rank just like the army or mafia. The lodge is like a meetin place where they lime and discuss how to make money the illuminati are a higher part of that society their members are very rich powerful people. presidents, bankers, royalty etc.

i am grateful
thankie

reason why i asked;
i attended a funeral recently for a person who was part of a lodge. actually the one on gray street woodbrook.
at the grave site, only the men were allowed close to the casket and the women were kept at bay
i couldn't make out what the men were "chanting" if i could call it that, and then I saw his brother place a pack of cigarette in the deceased shirt pocket. ....a ritual!! I don't know.


any explaination ?
and also why are women "not" allowed.

I know this is off the topic but....

TriniCana --- Some lodges actually allow women..but for the most part, there are 'associated' bodies aligned with the Freemasons that are indeed primarily for females (the female version of the Freemasons).  One of the most well known of the female sisterhood organizations is called the 'Order of the Eastern Star'. 

In addition, apart from what you may have heard, the 'Ancient Free and Accepted Masons' (the Freemasons), and the 'Order of the Eastern Star' are primarily engaged in charitable and other noble pursuits etc.

Be well, sister! 

[Dutty]

Cana doh post no more breds

...buut ah sure she does be well lurking,like most of the folks that stop postin

Yess pecan ah talkin to you,,and morvant an zando an organic and cantona7 and..........

[OutsideMan]

Cana doh post no more breds

...buut ah sure she does be well lurking,like most of the folks that stop postin

Yess pecan ah talkin to you,,and morvant an zando an organic and cantona7 and..........

Yeah, ah realize that.   

[Pointman]

Cana doh post no more breds

...buut ah sure she does be well lurking,like most of the folks that stop postin

Yess pecan ah talkin to you,,and morvant an zando an organic and cantona7 and..........

Dutty is 9000+ post yuh reach dread?? 

[Dutty]

Cana doh post no more breds

...buut ah sure she does be well lurking,like most of the folks that stop postin

Yess pecan ah talkin to you,,and morvant an zando an organic and cantona7 and..........

Dutty is 9000+ post yuh reach dread?? 

yes doctor..ah shootin for 10k posts like mih pardner west coast

....although he use to hit dem numbers by de week