Bible Origins -- discussion

[jimboston]

Constantine's reign/power is certainly a matter for discussion, but the real point is that despite all of this, the Bible still persists and, with only minor issues survives challenging Christian/Theological scholarship. (I make this distinction because I am not referring to absolutely verified scientific proof that the events occurred exactly as described, rather that the current Bible is consistent with earlier texts and records).

With a 30 second search...

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

"Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the Council of Nicea."

"Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy."

How can you claim that the "current Bible is consistent with earlier text and records?

I'm not saying this one website is 100% correct. I am saying that it's fact that the Council of Nicaea happened, and that this council "codified" the faith. You can claim that they made no material changes... BUT IT'S A FALSE CLAIM.

Of course material changes were made. If they didn't need to make material changes... why call the council at all?

Furthermore, to claim that the current Bible is "consistent" with earlier texts is blind claim.

Yes... if there were no material changes, then the Bible would be consistent. If there were material changes; then it makes perfect sense that the powers at the time would have destroyed other texts that contradicted their doctrine. Even with the attempt to destroy these texts, many still survived and we HAVE existing texts that pre-date Nicaea... that are materially different.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/new-testament.html

[jimboston]

Jesus made clear that the Jews would always be God's chosen people, even if they did not embrace him as savior.

Wait!!!

So if the Jewish people are "God's Chosen People"... then this means they are destined for Heaven???

... yet Jesus also said the "the only way to Heaven is thru Me".
(Paraphrasing of course. It's a translation of a translation of a translation anyway; so for all I know my paraphrase there could be the translation closest to what He originally said.

... and the one thing ALL Christian religions have in common is they they believe only Christians can go to Heaven.
(Of course they all define the word Christian differently, but that's a whole new thread.)

SO WHO'S RIGHT? ARE JEWS GOING TO HEAVEN OR CHRISTIANS?
I'M REALLY CONFUSED HERE!!!

... by the way, I'm also confused about what it means to be Jewish. Are the Chosen People those who are religious Jew, or ethnic Jews? I'm guessing when the Jewish people originally came up with the concept of being the "Chosen People" it was strictly an ethnic thing. Is that still true?

... you know many early Christians considered themselves Jews. We do consider Torah to be sacred, and part of our Old Testament. So if have the same book (plus some more stuff); shouldn't we Christians really just be a subset of the Jewish Faith?

[jgordon1111]

Player, you just can't contain your hypocrisy,you ask me to show where you said anything and immediately give more examples of your beliefs citing Romans and Levictus, and then jump to how I slurred you, LMAO, yes your memory has gaps it seem that work when its convenient for you, I REMIND YOU NOW YOU STATED I DIDNT BELIVE IN GOD,show one time I slurred YOU, I spoke that certain aspects of your beliefs were hypocritical, and again you prove it in your last post, in regards to saying some of the things you have said about me, being UN-CHRISTIAN of you yes I did,and they are. Beyond this show any proof, that I was the person in the wrong here. You can't because YOU are the one who has repeatedly attacked and slurred me, claiming just the opposite. That is called hypocrisy PLAYER.

[PLAYER57832]

Constantine's reign/power is certainly a matter for discussion, but the real point is that despite all of this, the Bible still persists and, with only minor issues survives challenging Christian/Theological scholarship. (I make this distinction because I am not referring to absolutely verified scientific proof that the events occurred exactly as described, rather that the current Bible is consistent with earlier texts and records).

With a 30 second search...

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

"Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the Council of Nicea."

Yeah, gone on about internet "referencing" before. In this case, it is true that many documents were destroyed, but definitely not all.

at any rate, its still opinion, not factual dispute of my beliefs.

"Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy."

How can you claim that the "current Bible is consistent with earlier text and records?

I'm not saying this one website is 100% correct. I am saying that it's fact that the Council of Nicaea happened, and that this council "codified" the faith. You can claim that they made no material changes... BUT IT'S A FALSE CLAIM.

see above.

Of course material changes were made. If they didn't need to make material changes... why call the council at all?

Are you truly serious?
Humans dispute. Even today, long after the Bible has been canonized do we have many different ideas about which Books truly belong within the Bible and what the texts mean (disputed and undisputed).

Christianity went through astounding periods of growth. Along with this were many texts. Not all were of equal value, some were perhaps outright frauds, some misunderstandings, but still found many readers/believers. So, a council was established to set forth officially what would and would not be considered sacred. Two examples are the Gnostic beliefs (its said one primary reason for the council was to refute these beliefs -- so pervasive that I have been told Gnostics likely would have overtaken our current ideas were they not largely a celibate group) and the Book of Judah (actually subscribed to, I am told by Muslims.. though I am not clear on if its fully accepted or just if parts are incorporated into their beliefs).

Furthermore, to claim that the current Bible is "consistent" with earlier texts is blind claim.

Yes... if there were no material changes, then the Bible would be consistent. If there were material changes; then it makes perfect sense that the powers at the time would have destroyed other texts that contradicted their doctrine. Even with the attempt to destroy these texts, many still survived and we HAVE existing texts that pre-date Nicaea... that are materially different.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/new-testament.html

The Bible is consistent with some texts, those Christian theologians consider valid. Even so, there is some dispute over various issues ( infant Baptism, use of icons, etc, etc, etc....). Are you seriously suggesting that only the valid texts would persist and that there could be no dispute? Or that people would never disagree if the text were legitimate?

[jgordon1111]

K player you can sidestep a lot of points, it seems everyone agrees that we have been around a wee bit longer than the church, oh lets say 100 yrs ago would have us believe, yes? Riddle me this then PLAYER, unless you can produce documentation from adam, eve or even Noah, prior to Moses, where the F was god, no mention of him prior to leading the slaves out of Egypt, er,uh, damn, no answer for that now do you, What I am asking just in case you can't wrap your mind around it, is why didn't he anouce himself to oh lets say the summerians, or maybe the Chinese or he'll even the Egyptians? All which there is actual proof today existed well before he announced himself to moses, quite a stretch of time there. Cmon player you can do it, answer the question,with actual facts and proof.If he was so intent on us following what you believe, wouldn't he have announced himself way before according to what you believe.

[tzor]

Either the Bible is FACT or it is ALLEGORY.

I find that argument to be most illogical.

Then again, I'm pretty much quite knowledgeable about George Washington and can tell you which items are fact and which are allegory.

But that begs a different question. What the hell is this "Bible" you speak of?

The "Bible" is a collection of works, sometimes called "books." (Even though they were originally on scrolls.) All written at different times, with different authors, and for different purposes.

Why there's a whole work dedicated to songs. There is one work that is actually the forerunner of Jewish comedy.

There are both facts and allegories in the collection of books called the Bible. It's just the way collections are.

[tzor]

So if the Jewish people are "God's Chosen People"... then this means they are destined for Heaven???

Who knows? ... GOD KNOWS.

SO WHO'S RIGHT? ARE JEWS GOING TO HEAVEN OR CHRISTIANS?
I'M REALLY CONFUSED HERE!!!

Somehow I don't think you are "confused." You just love to post nonsense got you questions.

I'll give you a hint. Revelation suggests that the number of "Jews" in heaven is perfection squared times a whole lot from every tribe of Israel.

And then the overall population is ... I can't count this group ...

(Seriously, you can't. The size of "New Jerusalem" in Revelation is so huge that the international space station could actually crash into it once it landed on the ground.)

[PLAYER57832]

The "Bible" is a collection of works, sometimes called "books." (Even though they were originally on scrolls.) All written at different times, with different authors, and for different purposes.

Why there's a whole work dedicated to songs. There is one work that is actually the forerunner of Jewish comedy.

There are both facts and allegories in the collection of books called the Bible. It's just the way collections are.

Yeah, I tried explaining that earlier.. the concept is apparently beyond his grasp, or he's just trolling.

[tzor]

K player you can sidestep a lot of points, it seems everyone agrees that we have been around a wee bit longer than the church, oh lets say 100 yrs ago would have us believe, yes? Riddle me this then PLAYER, unless you can produce documentation from adam, eve or even Noah, prior to Moses, where the F was god, no mention of him prior to leading the slaves out of Egypt, er,uh, damn, no answer for that now do you, What I am asking just in case you can't wrap your mind around it, is why didn't he anouce himself to oh lets say the summerians, or maybe the Chinese or he'll even the Egyptians? All which there is actual proof today existed well before he announced himself to moses, quite a stretch of time there. Cmon player you can do it, answer the question,with actual facts and proof.If he was so intent on us following what you believe, wouldn't he have announced himself way before according to what you believe.

First of all, there is nothing in Christianity to suggest that God was hidden to everyone else but one group of people. It is sort of implied that this was not the case in Genesis.

Melchizedek, for example is the king of Salem which was a completely random place and not directly connected to Abram's line or lineage. And yet he believed in "God most high."

[PLAYER57832]

K player you can sidestep a lot of points, it seems everyone agrees that we have been around a wee bit longer than the church, oh lets say 100 yrs ago would have us believe, yes? Riddle me this then PLAYER, unless you can produce documentation from adam, eve or even Noah, prior to Moses, where the F was god, no mention of him prior to leading the slaves out of Egypt, er,uh, damn, no answer for that now do you, What I am asking just in case you can't wrap your mind around it, is why didn't he anouce himself to oh lets say the summerians, or maybe the Chinese or he'll even the Egyptians? All which there is actual proof today existed well before he announced himself to moses, quite a stretch of time there. Cmon player you can do it, answer the question,with actual facts and proof.If he was so intent on us following what you believe, wouldn't he have announced himself way before according to what you believe.

OK, one last time, though you have made plain you are just trolling. Tzor hit part of it, but:

A. The Jews did not WRITE DOWN their beliefs first, but that doesn't mean they had no traditions or history earlier.

B. Most societies have references to God, many have references that are similar in many parts to Christianity. It could be that we all have a communal memory, it could be as you are trying to claim (I don't say I can disprove your beliefs, just that you cannot prove them true), OR it could be that what I or other Christians believe is true and these other cultures are just retaining part of that memory in a skewed form. OR, it could be as someone else suggested earlier that its all fiction, but some ideas are just central to being human.


C.The basic point, which you keep ignoring and skirting is that you cannot prove my beliefs false. Your beliefs are just that, belief and not fact.

[jgordon1111]

Dear Player, please seek professional assistance immediately. Now you have by your last post changed your stance again, now it seems your view is no longer that the bible was written by actual witnesses, again I point out your only consistency, is that your point of view changes rapidly, depending on what day it is it seems, either that or you really need to see a Dr. Which is it? Do tell.

[AndyDufresne]

OK, one last time...
C.The basic point, which you keep ignoring and skirting is that you cannot prove my beliefs false. Your beliefs are just that, belief and not fact.

--Andy

[jimboston]

... but the real point is that despite all of this, the Bible still persists and, with only minor issues survives...

... It is true that many documents were destroyed, but definitely not all.

You are dense.

You say I'm wrong and then make comments that prove I'm right.
... yet you still miss it.

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

I think I figured out why I really left CC years ago!

The Bible is consistent with some texts, those Christian theologians consider valid. Even so, there is some dispute over various issues ( infant Baptism, use of icons, etc, etc, etc....). Are you seriously suggesting that only the valid texts would persist and that there could be no dispute? Or that people would never disagree if the text were legitimate?

I'm not suggesting that only "valid" texts would persist. I am saying that the statement "The Bible is the Word of God" is not accurate. If for no other fact than we can't agree on what's in the Bible; and on the modification of the Bible over time. If there's dispute on what should be in the Bible then who decides this dispute? Theologians? It's the same argument about how to interpret the allegories. A person or committee has to decide. How can a person decide for another person how to make this interpretation? Maybe my interpretation is best, because I'm DIVINELY INSPIRED... and the rest are hacks. How could you prove me wrong??? Or right??? How do you decide who is right when there are so many conflicting views, even within Christianity itself. Not to mention the other 2/3rd's of the humans on this planet, who have been Divinely Inspired in a completely different way.

[jimboston]

What the hell is this "Bible" you speak of?

The "Bible" is a collection of works, sometimes called "books." (Even though they were originally on scrolls.) All written at different times, with different authors, and for different purposes.

Why there's a whole work dedicated to songs. There is one work that is actually the forerunner of Jewish comedy.

There are both facts and allegories in the collection of books called the Bible. It's just the way collections are.

OK. So people wrote it.

OK. So what makes it special then?

[jimboston]

So if the Jewish people are "God's Chosen People"... then this means they are destined for Heaven???

Who knows? ... GOD KNOWS.

SO WHO'S RIGHT? ARE JEWS GOING TO HEAVEN OR CHRISTIANS?
I'M REALLY CONFUSED HERE!!!

Somehow I don't think you are "confused." You just love to post nonsense got you questions.

I'll give you a hint. Revelation suggests that the number of "Jews" in heaven is perfection squared times a whole lot from every tribe of Israel.

And then the overall population is ... I can't count this group ...

(Seriously, you can't. The size of "New Jerusalem" in Revelation is so huge that the international space station could actually crash into it once it landed on the ground.)

I was replying to specific comments from Player.
Without those comments, what I wrote makes no sense.

I may like "gotcha questions".
I think you like just typing randoms words that kinda sound like sentences, but make no real sense.

[jimboston]

The "Bible" is a collection of works, sometimes called "books." (Even though they were originally on scrolls.) All written at different times, with different authors, and for different purposes.

Why there's a whole work dedicated to songs. There is one work that is actually the forerunner of Jewish comedy.

There are both facts and allegories in the collection of books called the Bible. It's just the way collections are.

Yeah, I tried explaining that earlier.. the concept is apparently beyond his grasp, or he's just trolling.

Actually, you finally are coming around to agreeing with me.
That the Bible was put together by committee... "collected" as you say.

... if it's just a collection of various works, about various subjects, from various authors...
What makes it special? Where these people all Divinely Inspired, along with the Editors.
If not, then it's just another book.

[jimboston]

Dear Player, please seek professional assistance immediately. Now you have by your last post changed your stance again, now it seems your view is no longer that the bible was written by actual witnesses, again I point out your only consistency, is that your point of view changes rapidly, depending on what day it is it seems, either that or you really need to see a Dr. Which is it? Do tell.

I actually laughed out loud for reals when I read this!

[Bernie Sanders]

Dear Player, please seek professional assistance immediately. Now you have by your last post changed your stance again, now it seems your view is no longer that the bible was written by actual witnesses, again I point out your only consistency, is that your point of view changes rapidly, depending on what day it is it seems, either that or you really need to see a Dr. Which is it? Do tell.

I actually laughed out loud for reals when I read this!

[warmonger1981]

Manley P Hall states Christianity well.
Contrary to the dictates of reason, a standard has been established which affirms that innocence bred of ignorance is more to be desired than virtue born of knowledge. Eventually, however, man will learn that he need never be ashamed of truth. Until he does learn this, he is false to his God, to his world, and to himself. In this respect, Christianity has woefully failed in its mission. While declaring man's body to be the living temple of the living God, in the same breath it asserts the substances and functions of this temple to be unclean and their study defiling to the sensitive sentiments of the righteous. By this unwholesome attitude, man's body--the house of God--is degraded and defamed.

A book in the Bible can be fact or an allegory. Some things have duel meaning.

The mediæval Qabbalists represented creation as a tree with its roots in the reality of spirit and its branches in the illusion of tangible existence. The Sephirothic tree of the Qabbalah was therefore inverted, with its roots in heaven and its branches upon the earth.
Manley P Hall

[jimboston]

The why is moot.

The 'why' was my entire question, so it is the opposite of moot.

It's moot to the point I was making, and moot to this thread, and unanswerable.

So still moot.

As moot as the "why" in; "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

[jimboston]

A book in the Bible can be fact or an allegory. Some things have duel meaning.

So who does the interpretation?

I think a lot of religious leaders are charlatans.

[warmonger1981]

Well there are actually 3 sides to a coin. Heads,tails and the side. It's how one percieves is how one interperates. A person only becomes a leader is when one can find followers. So I would say that almost 90% of religious interpretation is self righteous or misinterpreted. Only the high priests truly understand what they are preaching. The true God never created religion. It was mortal man who created religion.

[PLAYER57832]

The "Bible" is a collection of works, sometimes called "books." (Even though they were originally on scrolls.) All written at different times, with different authors, and for different purposes.

Why there's a whole work dedicated to songs. There is one work that is actually the forerunner of Jewish comedy.

There are both facts and allegories in the collection of books called the Bible. It's just the way collections are.

Yeah, I tried explaining that earlier.. the concept is apparently beyond his grasp, or he's just trolling.

Actually, you finally are coming around to agreeing with me.
That the Bible was put together by committee... "collected" as you say.

... if it's just a collection of various works, about various subjects, from various authors...
What makes it special? Where these people all Divinely Inspired, along with the Editors.
If not, then it's just another book.

You are either utterly idiotic or intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I have said.

There is NO inconsistency in saying that some of the Bible is believed to be by witnesses, but not all and that little of of it is proven scientific fact. To contrast, your claim that NONE of it is from witnesses and moreover that this is proven fact is just wrong. I agree that you can believe that, but you wish to go well beyond and claim that we are believing things that "everyone knows" to be false. This last is just wrong. That you cannot admit your error shows far more than any argument I can put forth.

You further go on to utterly distort what both I and Tzor, others have said. YOU and YOU ALONE here in this thread are claiming that every word in the Bible is utterly unchangeable or that if it is not utterly unchangeable, then it cannot be the word of God. We have tried to explain -- and note that I, Tzor, etc all come from different Christian traditions and have slightly differing views, but ALL, each, say that the Bible is the word of God. We do NOT, as you try to claim, say that it is entirely an account by witnesses nor do we agree, as you wish to claim, that being a guide given to us by God somehow means that there cannot be either differing or changing views. That you think this is necessary is ridiculous. People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies. A few of us have tried to explain this, but you continue with your claims. Believe as you will, it has little to do with our views.

I have never asked you or anyone else to believe as I do, but your decent into insults and inaccuracies shows your failures, not mine or anyone else's.

Go on arrogantly claiming you have "won". It matters not. Anyone who honestly cares for truth will find it. Within this thread, you make clear that is not your interest.

And.. for those of you who are cheering at this display of idiocy and failure to adhere to fact. Well... you show your own ignorance.

[Bernie Sanders]

[AndyDufresne]

Go on arrogantly claiming you have "won". It matters not. Anyone who honestly cares for truth will find it. Within this thread, you make clear that is not your interest.

--Andy