# The Bible -- Redux



## Diogenes (Jan 21, 2010)

I’ve been away on business for a bit, and I’ve noticed that the Bible II thread is also missing, replaced by Bible III, praising the glories of agreement  . . . HMMMM . . . . .   But I had a bit more to say on that Bible II thread, and since it is nowhere to be found, with your kind permission I’ll say my bit here . . .      

Unfortunately, as the niggling continues over just which words may or may not have been changed in this Book or that of the NT, the point is missed.

It is always deliberate, of course, for the self-described ‘Defenders of the Faith’ to set a rhetorical brushfire as a distraction from the actual point at hand, but our attention is not so easily diverted.

Notwithstanding what can only be described as the chronic narcissism that makes it impossible for some to see or understand anything that is not what they wish to see or believe, the history is quite clear.  Odd little distractions, fits of pique aimed at deleting entire lines of thought, and sophomoric verbal tricks are the stock-in-trade of Democrats, you will notice,  and won’t win the day.

I did not say that any particular bit of ‘Scripture’ was revised or rewritten “at the Council of Nicea.”   As has been pointed out, the Official Agenda of that Council (though murky, nefarious, and wholly revisionist in intent) did not include the actual writing of ‘Scripture.’  That had already been done for them.  Officially, they were far more concerned with marginalizing the Eastern Bishops by exclusion and physically eliminating dissenting thought. (Sound familiar?)

Constantine had his own agenda, however, and had spent ten years creating a mountain of fictitious ‘authentication’ to back it up.  Having assembled the bulk of the Western ‘Bishops’ at this Council, he essentially turned the situation into a hostage crisis at the point of his sword  -- here Constantine gave each a simple choice, which was to ratify his version and swear an oath, or be banished or killed outright.  After the few leaders of the opposition suffered just such fates, it took no time at all for the rest of the assembly to see the light.  

You see, it isn’t that Eusebius spent ten years carefully rewriting each of the ‘Books’ that were to make up the NT (though no small number of what we will charitably call ‘translation errors’ certainly occurred), but rather that he spent that time sifting through hundreds of equally credible accounts, Gospels, and ‘Divinely Inspired’ writings and decided to throw most of them away out of fear for his life if he upset the nutball Emperor by including them.  ‘Authenticity’ was what Constantine decided it was.  Period.

The Gospel of Thomas?  (Poof.)  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? (Poof.) Hundreds of contemporaneous writings were put to the flame (Sound familiar?)  Anyone found in possession of these writings was executed.  This is why archeologists find the few writings that remain buried in caves and the like – wise people hide books from madmen who seek to burn not only the books but those who own them.      

The revision was not done so much by editing individual sentences.  It was done by forcibly eliminating entire works and killing anyone associated with them.  (Sound familiar?)

Knowing this to be true, and knowing that it is equally true of certain ideological movements even today, we are forced into a difficult but hardly unique need to make a set of ethical and value decisions.  Here, allow me to make a parallel – when we see a News Story, and know that a great deal was left out quite deliberately, in order to serve the political aims of the reporting parties in question, we must conclude that this act of willful omission betrays any smug, sanctimonious declarations by journalists concerning their ‘objectivity.’  

Similarly, when we know that certain works were chosen, by men, to be included in the ‘Book’ while others were not, we are forced to conclude that the ‘Divine Word Of God’ is actually somewhat less than that.  The wholesale burning of disagreement and the ‘justifiable’ murder of dissenters betrays any possibility that the final work might have anything to do with anything other than the agendas of men.  What is included may well be, in some instances, ‘contemporaneous,’ and some bits may well represent the opinions and thoughts of actual people – but the fact remains that the works is incomplete, and deliberately so by the hand of man.  

One might also note that several books of the NT are of unattributed authorship, and present themselves as compilations of thoughts.  

(And, as has just been demonstrated – the heavy hand of dictatorship which will only tolerate one way of thinking has the ability – temporarily – to delete our words, but not our thoughts.  So the idea of creating a singular viewpoint by eliminating others is hardly unprecedented, and given the lack of success such a strategy has enjoyed throughout history it is truly odd that some attempt to employ it even today . . . )

There are worse prisons than words (the assembled ‘bishops’ obviously decided), and worse tragedies than sacrificing one’s life and mind to words.  But there might be no worse prison and no worse tragedy than ignorance – than blindly following words simply because you were told to do so, without ever questioning them.  That is a betrayal of yourself.

I have said that I consider organized religions to be evil, in large part because they are completely constructed by men with the intention of controlling other men.  But read carefully here, lest you mishear the message – the religious person, the individual, who follows a religion with benign intent, hoping only to do well and lead a moral life is handed a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card.  Those who become zealots, and bomb abortion clinics or become suicide bombers or assassinate rivals in the name of their ‘religious convictions’ are the shining exemplars of what is wrong with organized belief. 

Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and forethought.  Most people do not stop to think or to reason – they simply follow because they were taught to do so.  Few of the individuals, even among the zealots, qualify as evil people – their leaders, on the other hand, fit the bill.  Our world is filled with tragedies wrought by the blind following of words.

A thoughtful person, should one exist, might see the history of the world revealed here in a microcosm, and might be disturbed by the parallel . . .


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dio, I deleted the second thread which I started, as I felt the discussion could move along much better with original posts and material vs. re-quoting.

There was so much good discussion material in the original thread I wish I could have copied all of it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 22, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> The Gospel of Thomas?  (Poof.)  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? (Poof.) Hundreds of contemporaneous writings were put to the flame (Sound familiar?)



Sigh.   Naivety.

I never read long posts, (well, almost never) but these words jumped out at me....

I love how you throw the word 'contemporaneous' in there when you know yourself that almost no biblical scholar places them in the first century...and especially not pre-AD70.

Contemporaneous.      These gospels were never canon material.  

On that note....I was thinking about the canon...and how most of our NT books have been included in every list.   

Luke's writings were in every collection....and most of Paul's epistles.    Read them with full confidence that they were authoritative and canonical.     Early, apostle-qualified...undisputed.  

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


----------



## Israel (Jan 22, 2010)

Jesus never spoke to the group.
Jesus speaks to him who has ears to hear.
It is/was not his intention to do anything other than draw men to God through himself. He never looked for the comfort of agreement with himself...as we are wont to do. 
Indeed he put that to death, by vehemently denying it in his own person, resisting steadfastly any and every attempt he could have made to save his life and draw men to his own side. 
You only think you hate men's organized religions...wait till you see Jesus.
You have yet to see the one who could have easily (and with infinitely greater eloquence and intelligence) cut your deal with the world but instead chose shame, ridicule, abandonment and the scorn of the many who even once followed in order to be the true and faithful witness of what is.
The wink wink, nod nod and backslapping ease of the mutual admiration societies that have sprung up using his name are only a testimony of the last bit of undispelled darkness that is soon to be consumed in total light at his appearing.
Make no mistake, he who is coming, will come, and will not delay.
Men gather together to fight the execution of their rightful sentence. 
It is to no avail.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 22, 2010)

Israel said:


> Jesus never spoke to the group.
> Jesus speaks to him who has ears to hear.
> It is/was not his intention to do anything other than draw men to God through himself. He never looked for the comfort of agreement with himself...as we are wont to do.
> Indeed he put that to death, by vehemently denying it in his own person, resisting steadfastly any and every attempt he could have made to save his life and draw men to his own side.
> ...



Amen!


----------



## gtparts (Jan 22, 2010)

It seems to come down to personal perspective. If original to him, Dio prefers to "tint" history with a most negative bias towards the first Christian emperor of Rome.

Where Dio and others of his ilk see conspiracy of men, it is also reasonable for many to see a jealous God, using Eusebius, Constantine, the Council of Nicea, and the Roman government to purge the singular works of men from those He authored by inspiration of His chosen scribes.

Too often men on both sides of a question are reduced to gagging at gnats, yet swallowing camels in one bolt....and with an appreciative belch.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 22, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Dio, I deleted the second thread which I started, as I felt the discussion could move along much better with original posts and material vs. re-quoting.
> 
> There was so much good discussion material in the original thread I wish I could have copied all of it.



Yeh....and I'm STILL upset with you about that!  I had a dang good post in that thread!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 22, 2010)

Good thing there are those on here who can present the facts when others distort and present false information.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 22, 2010)

Dio....


I just wanted to say that you're funny.  You're kind of growing on me.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 22, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Dio....
> 
> 
> I just wanted to say that you're funny.  You're kind of growing on me.



I'd consider that a malignant growth.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 22, 2010)

Either way....


One thing that I do know is that I've grown since I first stumbled upon this section of the forum a while back.

I would have been all over Dio like white on rice back then.  Now....well I just feel heartbroken for him.

Y'all carry on.  Emotional moment over!


----------



## mcbrayerg (Jan 22, 2010)

On a side note...are we limited in terms of what we can choose for our avatar?  Just curious...


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 22, 2010)

You must have "tha dog"....that's your only choice.


----------



## thedeacon (Jan 22, 2010)

Glad he just had a bit to say


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm sure we've heard the last of the 'changed scripture' argument at least.    I believe they've learned not to bring it up if they can't back it up!   

Always good to clean up confusion and disinformation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 22, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> I’ve been away on business for a bit, .



I find this difficult to believe.  My guess is you’re a high school junior with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a lot of time on your hands.  However, I ask myself, “Can an ego this immense really have developed in only 17 years?”




Diogenes said:


> … the chronic narcissism that makes it impossible for some to see or understand anything that is not what they wish to see or believe,



Maybe you should also apply this to yourself, as well.




Diogenes said:


> I did not say that any particular bit of ‘Scripture’ was revised or rewritten “at the Council of Nicea.”   As has been pointed out, the Official Agenda of that Council (though murky, nefarious, and wholly revisionist in intent) did not include the actual writing of ‘Scripture.’  .



Actually, I think that’s what you’ve been implying all along.  You’re only backtracking now because you got called on it.  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.




Diogenes said:


> Officially, they were far more concerned with marginalizing the Eastern Bishops by exclusion and physically eliminating dissenting thought. (Sound familiar?)
> 
> Constantine had his own agenda, however, and had spent ten years creating a mountain of fictitious ‘authentication’ to back it up.  Having assembled the bulk of the Western ‘Bishops’ at this Council, he essentially turned the situation into a hostage crisis at the point of his sword  -- here Constantine gave each a simple choice, which was to ratify his version and swear an oath, or be banished or killed outright.  After the few leaders of the opposition suffered just such fates, it took no time at all for the rest of the assembly to see the light.



Just.  Plain.  Wrong.

If you can’t get a simple fact like this right, why should anybody pay attention to anything else you say?  And this is not an innocent mistake on your part.  As Bandy noted in another thread, you’re just copying and pasting (practically verbatim) from this crazy site:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Council of Nicaea.htm 

Compare your statement with this:

_Firstly it should be noted that it mentions no bishops of the east. All the bishops mentioned in the letter, are those who have been cooped up in the western empire with Constantine for the last 10 years …_  (From the section called “Constantine’s Summons to the Attendees of Nicaea”.)  You also quoted this (again, almost word-for-word) in the original “Bible” thread.

As I said in that thread, the vast majority of the bishops were from the east.  This makes perfect sense since:

Nicea was in the east.
Constantine was in the east.
At least half the bishops of the time were in the east.

Also (as I said before),  see Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Sect. 120.  According to Schaff, “Most of the Eastern provinces were strongly represented; the Latin church, on the contrary, had only seven delegates”.

And see this passage from _Constantine and the Conversion of Europe_ by A.H.M Jones (Chapter 10):

The response to the Emperor's invitation from 
the West was negligible; the points at issue were of 
no interest to Western bishops, and for the most 
part unintelligible to them, and not even the offer 
of a free journey to the imperial court tempted 
them. The bishop of Rome excused himself on the 
grounds of age and ill-health, but sent two deacons 
to represent him. The only Italian bishop who 
attended was Marcus of Calabria. Gaul and the Illy- 
rian provinces were represented by one bishop each. 
From Africa came Caecilian of Carthage, who was 
evidently anxious to confirm his title to his see by 
obtaining tacit or explicit recognition by the great 
Council. From Britain and from Spain there came 
no representatives; Hosius of Corduba attended, but 
as the Emperor's ecclesiastical adviser, in which 
capacity he took precedence over the delegates of 
the Pope. 

The great bulk of the Council came from the 
Greek-speaking provinces of the empire. Among the 
signatories nineteen are Egyptian bishops, twenty- 
five from the provinces of the East, and over a hun- 
dred from Asia Minor; the Greek-speaking provinces 
of Europe are more sparsely represented by eleven bishops. The leading scholars and theologians of 
the East were all present, men such as the two 
Eusebii, of Caesarea and of Nicomedia, Alexander of 
Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius of 
Antioch, Paulinus of Tyre.

If they had held the council in Toledo (Spain), the reverse situation would have been true.  Read actual church history (instead of crazy conspiracy theory websites) and you won’t make factual errors like this.  Also, familiarize yourself with a compass and a good map.




Diogenes said:


> Eusebius … spent that time sifting through hundreds of equally credible accounts, Gospels, and ‘Divinely Inspired’ writings and decided to throw most of them away out of fear for his life if he upset the nutball Emperor by including them.  ‘Authenticity’ was what Constantine decided it was.  Period.
> 
> The Gospel of Thomas?  (Poof.)  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? (Poof.) Hundreds of contemporaneous writings were put to the flame (Sound familiar?)  Anyone found in possession of these writings was executed.  This is why archeologists find the few writings that remain buried in caves and the like – wise people hide books from madmen who seek to burn not only the books but those who own them.



OK, altogether this time:  Just.  Plain.  Wrong.

In your view of “history”, you seem to believe that, after the Apostles died, a kind of “mini Dark Ages” resulted.  This lasted through the 4th century until Constantine decided to “reinvent” Christianity to his liking.  In reality, the church had rejected these spurious gospels and other writings long before the 4th century.  For example:

St. Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, stated that there were …. four gospels.

Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries, stated that there were …. four gospels.

Tatian (2nd century) wrote the _Diatessaron_, which was a harmony of the … four gospels.

Origen, possibly the greatest intellect of his day, wrote in the 3rd century that there were …. four gospels.

As for the rest of the NT, the canon was largely finalized in the second century.  Only a few books (most notably Revelation) remained in question after that.




Diogenes said:


> The revision was not done so much by editing individual sentences.  It was done by forcibly eliminating entire works and killing anyone associated with them.  (Sound familiar?)



Yes, it sounds exactly like every other conspiracy theory I’ve ever seen.




Diogenes said:


> (And, as has just been demonstrated…



All you’ve demonstrated is:

a) You can’t tell east from west and
b) You’re completely uninformed on the writings of Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Polycarp, Origen, etc.

On the other hand, your “cut and paste” skills are outstanding.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 22, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Yeh....and I'm STILL upset with you about that!  I had a dang good post in that thread!



Sorry 'bout that, HF.  I'm simply siding back into the swamp for a while.  

And yes, it was a fine post indeed.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 23, 2010)

Eusabius clearly noted blatant differences found in the most widely known variations of the four letters of the Gospels.  He had the ear of Constantine I.  It is well documented.
Missing sections of the book of Mark as one example.


There were MANY Gospel variations in the timeframe leading up to the Council and Constantine's influence.  Stating otherwise is not historically factual.

The West came to some concensus AFTER Nicea in the fourth century.  The East did not come to concencus until the seventh century.

I suggest a little deeper research into the records and studies of the Catholic Church.  They have much more detailed history that is not nearly as simplified as the Protestant apologetics tend to be.
The writings of Eusabius himself is a start.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 23, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Eusabius clearly noted blatant differences found in the most widely known variations of the four letters of the Gospels.  He had the ear of Constantine I.  It is well documented.
> Missing sections of the book of Mark as one example.



Nobody denies that there are differences in various manuscript copies.  The vast majority of manuscripts are in agreement, however.  They include sections such as the last part of Mark 16 and the “pericope de adultera” in John 8.  Even if you removed these passages from all modern Bibles, it wouldn’t affect any doctrines.  




WTM45 said:


> There were MANY Gospel variations in the timeframe leading up to the Council and Constantine's influence.  Stating otherwise is not historically factual.



Again, nobody denies that there are other gospel accounts.  What I do deny is that the early church every considered them to be legitimate.  Take the Gospel of Thomas, for example.  None of the major 2nd or 3rd century fathers ever quoted from it or claimed it was a “true” gospel.  Here’s Origen (3rd century) in his_ Homily on Luke_:

_'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted._




WTM45 said:


> The West came to some concensus AFTER Nicea in the fourth century.  The East did not come to concencus until the seventh century.



Officially, yes.  In the late 4th century, St. Athanasius listed the same 27 NT books that we have today.  Unofficially, the 2nd and 3rd century church had already recognized at least 22 of the books. 




WTM45 said:


> I suggest a little deeper research into the records and studies of the Catholic Church.



That’s what I use.  A lot of it is online.  My church also has a pretty extensive library.




WTM45 said:


> The writings of Eusabius himself is a start.



I read his _History of the Church _years ago and still refer back to it frequently.  I’ve read portions of his _Life of Constantine_.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 23, 2010)

You are a rather verbiose poster. 




Diogenes said:


> ......  This is why archeologists find the few writings that remain buried in caves and the like – wise people hide books from madmen who seek to burn not only the books but those who own them.
> . . .



Ironically, scrolls have been found and archeological evidence exists, confirming some of the Deutercanonical (or Apocryphal) writings are in fact:  Legitimate.

Other books have been found that reinforce the original writings of the Bible.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> You are a rather verbiose poster.



Uh....is that a fancy way of saying someone writes much but says little?      Or does it mean 'cut-and-paste'???


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 24, 2010)

gtparts said:


> It seems to come down to personal perspective. If original to him, Dio prefers to "tint" history with a most negative bias towards the first Christian emperor of Rome.
> 
> Where Dio and others of his ilk see conspiracy of men, it is also reasonable for many to see a jealous God, using Eusebius, Constantine, the Council of Nicea, and the Roman government to purge the singular works of men from those He authored by inspiration of His chosen scribes.
> 
> Too often men on both sides of a question are reduced to gagging at gnats, yet swallowing camels in one bolt....and with an appreciative belch.



It is reasonable for one to show concern over ANY government that desires to link up with a religious cause.  Especially a warring, murderous tyrant who was the primary benefactor (read employer) of the clergy.

Study Constantine I closely, and then let me know if you feel he was a "Christian."  Sol Invictus was his true fear and subject of worship.  Knowing there needed to be a reason to expand the Empire, he saw his best results when fighting with men united under a religious crusade oath.  It added the emotional component to the tough job of cleaning up the world and gaining wealth and power over people.

Study Eusebius closely, and then let me know if you feel he was a "Christian."  He worshiped wealth, power and highly valued the royal family, education, birthright and the highest class citizenry which he so wanted to be part of.  He got there and stayed there as a member of the clergy.  He owed his entire being to Constantine I.

I'm sure the thousands who were beheaded, fed to lions, disemboweled and tortured while the Empire led by Constantine I was stealing lands, raping, pillaging and taking wealth at the tip of a sword would disagree greatly that "God" was using him for a higher purpose.
History has documented what occured.  If you want to think "God" allowed it, and planned it, and witnessed it, and even took pleasure in it then go ahead.


----------



## Inthegarge (Jan 24, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> It is reasonable for one to show concern over ANY government that desires to link up with a religious cause.  Especially a warring, murderous tyrant who was the primary benefactor (read employer) of the clergy.
> 
> Study Constantine I closely, and then let me know if you feel he was a "Christian."  Sol Invictus was his true fear and subject of worship.  Knowing there needed to be a reason to expand the Empire, he saw his best results when fighting with men united under a religious crusade oath.  It added the emotional component to the tough job of cleaning up the world and gaining wealth and power over people.
> 
> ...



You are making a big leap.....Just because God ALLOWED it in no way means He "Planned it and witnessed it, and even took pleasure in it"..... Show me documentation of this claim !! 1) God is not constrained by time 2) He does not cause bad things to happen BUT allows us as human beings to do things He never would do. 3)He wants people who worship Him willing and not robots that can not think for themselves. 

You have a choice... you can be accepting of other people as they are....OR... you can try to cram evolution and all your other "theroies" down their throat. Why is there no room for the Theory of Creation in schools ??  I believe it is because evolutionist are afraid it has more scientific support than evolution. So much for being "open minded". 

RW


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 24, 2010)

Sounding brass, tinkling cymbal.
That's what I hear.

I'm not making any claim here.  I stated "If you want to think." 
No, I don't follow that ideal.  At all.

"You have a choice... you can be accepting of other people as they are....OR... you can try to cram evolution and all your other "theroies" down their throat."
That goes both ways, simply replacing the word "evolution" with the words "intelligent design."


----------



## Diogenes (Jan 25, 2010)

PARENTAL WARNING: Those with short attention spans who “Don’t Read Long Posts” are in danger of learning more than they may be capable of absorbing, and are advised to take the nearest exit ramp.

Let’s start here: centerpin fan states: “My guess is you’re a high school junior with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a lot of time on your hands. However, I ask myself, “Can an ego this immense really have developed in only 17 years?”

Now, it is my understanding that the Administrators here tend to frown on the time honored and juvenile debating technique of hurling personal insults as a substitute for reasoned thought, and so I will refrain from returning service on that one by relating my own ‘guess,’ which would certainly not be nearly as charitable as your own. 

To the topic at hand, Allow me to say that I’ve never heard of the ‘mountainman’ web site referenced, since I do little or no research on the internet.  As you note, it seems filled with ill-considered and partially thought out snippets meant only to fulfill a pre-determined point of view.  Much like the New York Times, or NBC.  So if someone took some bits out of the same sources I read, and assembled them to their own ends, well, I’m somehow unsurprised.  

Similarly, I find such wholly biased sources as Phillip Schaff, A.H.M. Jones, Saint Irenaeus, and the like to be little different than gathering the whole of one’s historical knowledge directly at the knee of Oral Roberts.  

Heck, most serious historians give little credence even to Eusebius’ own accounts, and he was one of the principal players in this little drama.  

Setting aside any odd assumptions concerning my personal characteristics or what one wishes to deem ‘what I seem to believe,’ and also setting aside wholesale revisions meant to reinforce what were, in truth, wholesale revisions, allow us to work with a few of the things that are actually known:

Centerpin fan wears women’s underwear.  (No, wait a minute, that’s just an internet rumor, completely unsubstantiated.  Hang on . . . let me get focused here . . . )

‘The Church’ at the time was hardly an organized effort, and was even much less unified than it is today.  What some may wish to point to as ‘agreement’ among the ‘greatest intellects’ is actually little more than searching desperately for the very few who did agree and then declaring those few to be the ‘authorities.’  Well, of course – if they agree with the agenda you wish to promote, then politics then and now will anoint them as the leading lights.  Al Gore didn’t become famous just because he ignores inconvenient facts and invents new ones – he knows that in order to win political support you need to declare your sources to be ‘authoritarian.’  Not much has changed over the millennia . . . 

But as I said, Constantine had an advantage in this game – he was the Emperor.  We’re pretty sure that is true as well.  

Northern Africa became largely separatist, as Donatists, and this lasted several centuries, so we can be pretty sure there was no support there, placing a southern limit on things.

But until 324 Constantine was only the ruler of the western half of the empire, and it wasn’t until he had defeated his brother-in-law, Licinius, in late 324 that he was able to consolidate his grip on the entire empire.  By now ‘The Church’ was even more fragmented.  Lacking any central leadership or coherent  organization, there can’t really be said in any rational construct to have been a ‘Church’ to speak of, but rather several hundred competing sects loosely connected by little more than an underlying belief in Christ as Savior, but by little else in either practice or connected doctrines.  This is also hardly in dispute.   

Constantine almost immediately called for what was to become know as the First Ecumenical Council, or the Council of Nicea, which ‘officially’ convened on May 20, 325.  Not surprisingly, just about everything about the council is also in dispute, depending on one’s point of view.  It is usually reported that about 1,800 ‘Bishops’ were ‘invited,’ or ‘summoned,’ depending on the reporter, more or less.  The number of actual attendees also varies by accounts, but is thought to be somewhere between 250 and 320.  Hardly representative, but it needs to be remembered that there was no real formalized ‘Church’ appointing folks to be ‘Bishops,’ and also that the invited were only those within the Empire, which had only been consolidated under a single Emperor less than a year earlier.  Here one of the main points of dispute arises – many ‘Christian Scholars’ argue that the eastern bishops formed the majority of the assembled.  Well, sort of.  Holding a ‘Council’ on short notice among the ‘bishops’ of fragmented sects within the bounds of an Empire that was still in turmoil, and placing that ‘Council’ at a site that was not easily accessible was well designed to cement Constantine’s hold on his newly conquered territories, and also rather assured that those who chose to attend arrived filled both with fear and ambition.

But.  ‘Christianity’ was not yet an official construct of the Roman Empire, and thus was not limited to the confines of same.  Given geographic limitations, and given Constantine’s already secure position in the western half of his empire, one serious concern was the spread of Christian sects and thoughts, and the divided loyalties of same, well beyond the eastern borders of Empire.  It couldn’t spread west, after all, since there was only water there.  Constantine needed to do a number of things, and among them was securing his shaky and newly held ‘eastern’ territory.  

So, insofar as the “Just. Plain. wrong,” accusation goes, methinks you have fallen prey to a common misconception, which is that the world may have ended at the border of the Roman Empire of the time.  The fact is that none of the representatives of the various sects of ‘Christian’ thought east of that border were invited.  This is normally what historians mean by ‘Eastern’ bishops.  If, for example, one calls a ‘Council’ and invites no one who resides west of the border of Georgia, but invites everyone up to that border and holds the meeting in Columbus, I suppose that it is somewhat accurate, though hugely distorted, to claim that the meeting represents the west.  The newly conquered eastern portion of the Roman Empire, by the same token, is hardly the East.  

Closed-minded sectarian defensive knee-jerk posturing aside, such a thought (that the East of Christian thought was either invited or represented) would be just plain wrong.  One need not possess a compass or even a decent map to see what Constantine was doing at the time.

Now.  Apparently it is also, “Just. Plain. wrong,” that a huge number of ‘Christian’ writings and ‘Gospels’ existed at the time, and were rejected by a small number of men and put to the flame, along with those who held to those writings.  Care to elaborate on that?  Didn’t happen?  The early Roman Christians of Constantinian manufacture were not enthusiastic book burners?  Anyone in possession of those writings not approved by Constantine, within his empire, were not sentenced to death by the emperor’s decree?  Really?  

The only defense offered is an assertion that, “In reality, the church had rejected these spurious gospels and other writings long before the 4th century.”  Really?   Which Church?  You cannot project backwards and assert that there existed then a central ‘Church’ which even today doesn’t exist.  Finding four ‘authoritative’ people who liked the idea of four gospels has a nice mystical, even numerological symmetry to it, but it hardly creates a ‘Church’ which made such a decision.  Fact is, the four sources of ‘agreement’ cited cannot possibly have even ever met each other, let alone formed a ‘Church.’

So, historically, in reality, since there was no such ‘Church,’ there could hardly have been any ‘canon’ that was ‘finalized’ in the second century.  Moreover, if one wishes to assert the clear falsehood that this is the case, then one is also inadvertently admitting the very thing one set out to refute – namely that a group of men, large or small, chose which ‘Books’ were actually the ‘Word of God’ and which were not, and that the ‘Books’ chosen were written by other men – an admission which is tantamount to cutting God out of the process entirely.  Also, regardless of niggling historical details, this is actually the truth of the matter, but it is good to see that even the ‘believers’ know that, and are now only arguing over just who decided . . . 

Denying that one account or another was ‘considered to be legitimate’ by the ‘early church’ is just the same – there was no ‘early church’ in any coherent incarnation until after Constantine created it.  At a certain point men, not God, ‘legitimized’ some writings of some people, and demonized and destroyed others.  And gosh – “Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted,”  well, perhaps Origen is actually the source of the ‘Church’ we ought to be analyzing then, since he places himself among the ‘we’ who have ‘approved’ the writings he wished to accept.  The argument for ‘Divine Inspiration,’ and the argument over Eusebius’s role or even Constantine’s role dissolves upon the very assertion and acceptance of the idea that it was men who assembled and ratified the Book.  

Hardly matters to argue over which men it was, huh?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> PARENTAL WARNING: Those with short attention spans who “Don’t Read Long Posts” are in danger of learning more than they may be capable of absorbing, and are advised to take the nearest exit ramp.
> 
> Let’s start here: centerpin fan states: “My guess is you’re a high school junior with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a lot of time on your hands. However, I ask myself, “Can an ego this immense really have developed in only 17 years?”
> 
> ...



Go back to sleep.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 25, 2010)

I gotta be honest....I didn't read it.  I have lost interest in what Dio has to say.  

I'm sure that somehow, somewhere he has convinced somebody of something.  But it ain't here.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Now, it is my understanding that the Administrators here tend to frown on the time honored and juvenile debating technique of hurling personal insults as a substitute for reasoned thought, and so I will refrain from returning service on that one by relating my own ‘guess,’ which would certainly not be nearly as charitable as your own.



I’ve never seen anyone as consistently condescending as you are in _every single post_.  In the original Bible thread, you referred to believers as “naïve little lambs”.  Above, you write about the “chronic narcissism” that blinds us and our “Closed-minded sectarian defensive knee-jerk posturing”.  I just wanted to see if you could take it as well as you dish it out.  Obviously, you can’t.  Maybe that big algebra test you’ve got coming up has got you “out of sorts”.  Or, maybe you’re already worrying about who to ask out for the prom.




Diogenes said:


> To the topic at hand, Allow me to say that I’ve never heard of the ‘mountainman’ web site referenced



Here’s a direct quote of yours from the original “Bible” thread:

_Note, first, that it mentions no bishops from the East, and largely only invites those who had spent ten years collaborating with Constantine on his huge fictional work “Fabrication of the Galilaeans.”_

And here’s the “ mountain man” version:  

_Firstly it should be noted that it mentions no bishops of the east. All the bishops mentioned in the letter, are those who have been cooped up in the western empire with Constantine for the last 10 years, working very hard and probably involved with putting together the fabrication of the galilaeans._

So, either:

a) You’re lying or
b) You and “mountain man” are using the same crazy conspiracy theory as a source.




Diogenes said:


> I do little or no research on the internet.



From what I can tell, you do little or no research, period.




Diogenes said:


> As you note, it seems filled with ill-considered and partially thought out snippets meant only to fulfill a pre-determined point of view.



Such as yours.




Diogenes said:


> Similarly, I find such wholly biased sources as Phillip Schaff, A.H.M. Jones, Saint Irenaeus, and the like to be little different than gathering the whole of one’s historical knowledge directly at the knee of Oral Roberts.



But your sources are completely unbiased?  




Diogenes said:


> Constantine almost immediately called for what was to become know as the First Ecumenical Council, or the Council of Nicea, which ‘officially’ convened on May 20, 325. Not surprisingly, just about everything about the council is also in dispute, depending on one’s point of view. It is usually reported that about 1,800 ‘Bishops’ were ‘invited,’ or ‘summoned,’ depending on the reporter, more or less. The number of actual attendees also varies by accounts, but is thought to be somewhere between 250 and 320. Hardly representative, but it needs to be remembered that there was no real formalized ‘Church’ appointing folks to be ‘Bishops,’ and also that the invited were only those within the Empire, which had only been consolidated under a single Emperor less than a year earlier. Here one of the main points of dispute arises – many ‘Christian Scholars’ argue that the eastern bishops formed the majority of the assembled. Well, sort of. Holding a ‘Council’ on short notice among the ‘bishops’ of fragmented sects within the bounds of an Empire that was still in turmoil, and placing that ‘Council’ at a site that was not easily accessible was well designed to cement Constantine’s hold on his newly conquered territories, and also rather assured that those who chose to attend arrived filled both with fear and ambition.
> 
> But. ‘Christianity’ was not yet an official construct of the Roman Empire, and thus was not limited to the confines of same. Given geographic limitations, and given Constantine’s already secure position in the western half of his empire, one serious concern was the spread of Christian sects and thoughts, and the divided loyalties of same, well beyond the eastern borders of Empire. It couldn’t spread west, after all, since there was only water there. Constantine needed to do a number of things, and among them was securing his shaky and newly held ‘eastern’ territory.
> 
> So, insofar as the “Just. Plain. wrong,” accusation goes, methinks you have fallen prey to a common misconception, which is that the world may have ended at the border of the Roman Empire of the time. The fact is that none of the representatives of the various sects of ‘Christian’ thought east of that border were invited. This is normally what historians mean by ‘Eastern’ bishops. If, for example, one calls a ‘Council’ and invites no one who resides west of the border of Georgia, but invites everyone up to that border and holds the meeting in Columbus, I suppose that it is somewhat accurate, though hugely distorted, to claim that the meeting represents the west. The newly conquered eastern portion of the Roman Empire, by the same token, is hardly the East.



I started to reply to this point-by-point, but it’s so completely wrong and so devoid of actual facts that I’m not going to waste my time.  I will say this:  this is not the same story you were clinging to before.  You’re backtracking (once again) because I called you on a simple fact.

The more I read of your posts, one thing becomes clear:  _you really have no idea what you’re talking about._  You’ve latched on to some looney conspiracy websites and have taken them as “gospel”.  At least WTM45 actually tries to be serious.  You’re like somebody who wants to talk about Hitler but insists that Hitler wore his hair in a pony tail and sang backup for Aretha Franklin.  You can’t have a serious discussion with a person like that.




Diogenes said:


> The only defense offered is an assertion that, “In reality, the church had rejected these spurious gospels and other writings long before the 4th century.” Really? Which Church? You cannot project backwards and assert that there existed then a central ‘Church’ which even today doesn’t exist. Finding four ‘authoritative’ people who liked the idea of four gospels has a nice mystical, even numerological symmetry to it, but it hardly creates a ‘Church’ which made such a decision. Fact is, the four sources of ‘agreement’ cited cannot possibly have even ever met each other, let alone formed a ‘Church.’
> 
> So, historically, in reality, since there was no such ‘Church,’ there could hardly have been any ‘canon’ that was ‘finalized’ in the second century. Moreover, if one wishes to assert the clear falsehood that this is the case, then one is also inadvertently admitting the very thing one set out to refute – namely that a group of men, large or small, chose which ‘Books’ were actually the ‘Word of God’ and which were not, and that the ‘Books’ chosen were written by other men – an admission which is tantamount to cutting God out of the process entirely. Also, regardless of niggling historical details, this is actually the truth of the matter, but it is good to see that even the ‘believers’ know that, and are now only arguing over just who decided . . .
> 
> Denying that one account or another was ‘considered to be legitimate’ by the ‘early church’ is just the same – there was no ‘early church’ in any coherent incarnation until after Constantine created it. At a certain point men, not God, ‘legitimized’ some writings of some people, and demonized and destroyed others. And gosh – “Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted,” well, perhaps Origen is actually the source of the ‘Church’ we ought to be analyzing then, since he places himself among the ‘we’ who have ‘approved’ the writings he wished to accept. The argument for ‘Divine Inspiration,’ and the argument over Eusebius’s role or even Constantine’s role dissolves upon the very assertion and acceptance of the idea that it was men who assembled and ratified the Book.



Again … this is so wrong, I don’t know where to start.  Maybe if I have the time and the inclination, I’ll respond point by point later.  I doubt it, though.  Like Huntinfool, I’m losing interest rapidly.

For now, I’ll just say what I said before:  you have zero knowledge of the ante-Nicene church.

Zero.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> At least WTM45 actually tries to be serious.



It is becoming very hard to be, with both outright insults and veiled ones flying around like bullets in an arcade.
Neither will build credibility to either argument.

Let's all just stick to the subject matter of the discussion rather than each other.
It will work.  It's proven to.

Now, we all do have to agree that the works of Eusebius have been somewhat put to question as being less than honest and even outright fabrications regarding his employer.


Let's consider this, if you will...

If the UN called together the leaders of the world's churches today and decided to "Unite and Unify" them into one common system, under one "accepted" holy book, and those who disagreed would be subject to discipline, would it be determined right then it is "Divine Inspiration" or would it take a few generations for folks to accept that as such? 

Could that concensus be reached in less than a YEAR without a clear threat of negative repercussion or even death?  What power the facilitator must hold to achieve such result!

What if the UN was the greatest benefactor and "protector" of the church?  
What if the UN was the entity that issued the paychecks, approved the buildings and facilities, approved the art, commissioned the labor and artists and acted as both defender of the flock and as the judgemental authority?

If one wishes to believe that the God of Abraham used Constantine I, Origin, Eusebius (both of them) and others to promote and carry out the plan through "Divine Inspiration" then fine.
But you have to also believe that the God of Abraham is OK with a concrete bond of control existing between the church (however defined) and the state (dictatorships included).  That very same thought process led to the Crusades, and later to the ideal of Manifest Destiny.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Here’s a direct quote of yours from the original “Bible” thread:
> 
> _Note, first, that it mentions no bishops from the East, and largely only invites those who had spent ten years collaborating with Constantine on his huge fictional work “Fabrication of the Galilaeans.”_
> 
> ...




Pick me! Pick me, teacher!!!   I know the answer!!!!!!  lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

My family and I watched "The Da Vinci Code" yesterday.     What a joke!   In it they 'preached' that the Council debated the canon....(of course we know that that isn't true) and the guy mentioned the "Gospel of Phillip".    I told my son that those gospels were 2nd century, and since he had just told me about texting questions to "CHACHA"  (242242) I asked him to send this question to CHACHA.

When was the Gospel of Phillip written?

Guess what their response was?    

The Gospel of Phillip was written somewhere between 150AD and the 3rd century!   lol   They also said that since Phillip died AD80, it would be very difficult for him to be the actual author of this gospel.   LOL


thought I'd share that with you guys as comic relief!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

Let's not forget the Council was not the "end all, be all" of the debate over the canon or excluded/inclusive works.  Nor did it completely crush and destroy Arianism.  What does that say regarding the the "Divine Inspiration" of that event? 
Just a "stepping stone?" 

Athanasius continued a tough fight against the Arians, even using some pretty mean tactics.  Also, he made decisions on dropping even more works from the list in order to reach his approved 27 books POST Nicea.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

did they debate the canon at the Council?   Or is it conjecture?    The agendas I see on the web don't include 'canon debate' sessions.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Let's consider this, if you will...
> 
> If the UN called together the leaders of the world's churches today and decided to "Unite and Unify" them into one common system, under one "accepted" holy book, and those who disagreed would be subject to discipline, would it be determined right then it is "Divine Inspiration" or would it take a few generations for folks to accept that as such?
> 
> Could that concensus be reached in less than a YEAR without a clear threat of negative repercussion or even death?  What power the facilitator must hold to achieve such result!



Here are my thoughts on it.   If the Council HAD, in fact, debated and decided on an official list, I'd want to know the criteria for inclusion myself.    

If their list included books written after the first century, I'd hold those books 'suspect', especially in the light of first century writings.  

The synoptic gospels, Paul's writings and the writings of the apostles are all I need.    Anything later than those are merely research material.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here are my thoughts on it.   If the Council HAD, in fact, debated and decided on an official list, I'd want to know the criteria for inclusion myself.
> 
> If their list included books written after the first century, I'd hold those books 'suspect', especially in the light of first century writings.
> 
> The synoptic gospels, Paul's writings and the writings of the apostles are all I need.    Anything later than those are merely research material.



Understood.  Well said.

But......
How did you come about your acceptance of that list?
What gave you the dateline for cutoff of inclusion/exclusion?  
Influence of teaching?  Influence of the version of the Bible you were born into?
Eyewitness accounts only?
  Do you feel had you been born into Arianism in circa 300AD your beliefs may be different?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> If the UN called together the leaders of the world's churches today and decided to "Unite and Unify" them into one common system, under one "accepted" holy book



This is not a good analogy because this is not what happened at Nicea.  They discussed Arianism primarily plus the date of Easter and a few other issues.  The canon was not an issue.




WTM45 said:


> What if the UN was the greatest benefactor and "protector" of the church?
> What if the UN was the entity that issued the paychecks, approved the buildings and facilities, approved the art, commissioned the labor and artists and acted as both defender of the flock and as the judgemental authority?



What if we forget about Nicea and Constantine and Eusebius for a minute and consider the fact that the ante-Nicene fathers’ writings fill up ten volumes and over 6,000 pages?  These writings are packed with scripture references from the same 27 NT books we have today.  Anybody who so desires can access these works and compare them to modern Bibles.

As someone who’s read a lot of the ante-Nicene fathers, this fixation on Constantine is just “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.  Constantine did not reinvent Christianity.  He did not add doctrines, and he did not delete doctrines.  If you believe otherwise, please provide specific examples.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> What if we forget about Nicea and Constantine and Eusebius for a minute and consider the fact that the ante-Nicene fathers’ writings fill up ten volumes and over 6,000 pages?  These writings are packed with scripture references from the same 27 NT books we have today.  Anybody who so desires can access these works and compare them to modern Bibles.



Those 27 were not established at Nicea.  You and I both know that.  It was Athanasius who some years later dropped a few books to arrive at that number.

Nicea, Constantine I and Eusebius can not be avoided, as they are the cement that bonded the church and state in a united purpose to control the populace.
All other issues about the details of establishing a state sponsored religious belief system are minor.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Those 27 were not established at Nicea.



I never said that they were.  No canon was established at Nicea.

What I did say is that the majority of the books had long been accepted by the church.  Need proof?  Read Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, etc.




WTM45 said:


> Nicea, Constantine I and Eusebius can not be avoided, as they are the cement that bonded the church and state in a united purpose to control the populace.
> All other issues about the details of establishing a state sponsored religious belief system are minor.



Well then:

a) What Christian doctrine is solely the invention of Constantine/Eusebius and not the apostles?

b) Conversely, what Christian doctrine did the apostles teach that Constantine/Eusebius subsequently deleted at Nicea?



And here's a variation of those same questions:

a)  What NT book did Constantine/Eusebius add to the canon that had never been accepted by the ante-Nicene church?

b)  Conversely, what NT book that had always been accepted by the ante-Nicene church was deleted from the canon at Nicea by Constantine/Eusebius?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

Does the fact that most of the books have always been part of the canon matter to you guys?   

WTM, I'd have to say that belonging to the mid-1st century and authored by apostles or qualified by apostles would be my criteria....

outside of the first century is not authoritative, no matter what the excuse.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." 

The New Advent Encyclopedia


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."
> 
> The New Advent Encyclopedia



What is the earliest 'list' of NT books we have?    I'm asking because I don't know.    Just curious as to what was on it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.



Has anyone stated otherwise?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> What is the earliest 'list' of NT books we have?



Depends on what you mean by "list".  (I sound like Bill Clinton.  )

St. Ignatius, writing at the turn of the 1st century, quotes from several NT books in his letters to various churches.  St. Polycarp (early 2nd century) mentions quite a few more of them in some of his writings.

As far as an actual "list" goes, though, it was probably Marcion in the mid-2nd century.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

There was no clear cut and concise agreement of the "canon" before Nicea, and there were even more Councils to move towards acceptance of what exists today after Nicea.
Twenty different "gospels" were active up to Eusebius.  Some had made statements of only accepting or honoring four of them as apostolic, but Constantine I got the ball rolling towards a universal decision of acceptance or rejection of the specifics.  He had a stong motivation to unite the belief system since it was now a major part of the empire's creed.
Even the Catholic Church admits the details of the Council's discussions on theology are very sketchy.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> Has anyone stated otherwise?



It has been openly inferred here that the four Gospels, as understood and accepted today, were unquestionably and universally accepted in the pre-Nicene period of the church.
That just is not so.
Even the First Council did not reach such an agreement on the written canon, even though they DID establish twenty canons.  It took even more Councils to respond to Arianism and to establish other canons of the church.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 25, 2010)

The duplication and dissemination of most of the books currently in today's New Testament where in common use throughout many of the churches from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to the end of the first century. Codified, no. In common circulation as single works, yes. They were considered as Holy Scripture within years of their writing. Such is evidenced by archeological discoveries across the known world of that day dating to the latter 1st century and early 2nd.

Like, cp-fan stated, has anyone stated otherwise?


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

gtparts said:


> They were considered as Holy Scripture within years of their writing.



Not universally.

Being intellectually honest, we are all at the mercy of the written histories which are somewhat vague, opinionated and full of political motivations.
 If one wants to accept what exists now as "Divinely Inspired" who am I to stand in their way?
I honestly don't know.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> There was no clear cut and concise agreement of the "canon" before Nicea



No, but there was substantial consensus on most of the books well before Nicea.  Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all list pretty much the same books.



WTM45 said:


> there were even more Councils to move towards acceptance of what exists today after Nicea.



Of the first seven ecumenical councils (accepted by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant believers), none dealt with the canon of scripture.




WTM45 said:


> Twenty different "gospels" were active up to Eusebius.



"Active" does not mean legitimate.  Please list the ante-Nicene fathers who accepted gospels other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.





WTM45 said:


> Some had made statements of only accepting or honoring four of them as apostolic.



Yes, and the "some" included men who knew the apostles and the disciples of the apostles.  In the case of Origen, you had a brilliant man with access to the greatest library of the ancient world.



WTM45 said:


> Constantine I got the ball rolling towards a universal decision of acceptance or rejection of the specifics.



Well, how about giving me some?

a) What Christian doctrine is solely the invention of Constantine/Eusebius and not the apostles?

b) Conversely, what Christian doctrine did the apostles teach that Constantine/Eusebius subsequently deleted at Nicea?

Or:

a) What NT book did Constantine/Eusebius add to the canon that had never been accepted by the ante-Nicene church?

b) Conversely, what NT book that had always been accepted by the ante-Nicene church was deleted from the canon at Nicea by Constantine/Eusebius?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> the four Gospels, as understood and accepted today, were unquestionably and universally accepted in the pre-Nicene period of the church.



OK, so what 2nd or 3rd century father disagreed with that?




WTM45 said:


> Even the First Council did not reach such an agreement on the written canon, even though they DID establish twenty canons.  It took even more Councils to respond to Arianism and to establish other canons of the church.



Just to be clear, this is not the same thing as the canon of scripture.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

"Pretty much the same" and universal acceptance of an existing WRITTEN canon is very different. 

The very fact that theological teachings were debated and books were DESTROYED supports the argument that the written scriptures were argued and subsequently voted on.

We all must realize nothing was titled "Gospel" at that time in history.  We have the advantage of looking at what exists now and comparing it to what has been historically recorded as existing then.

Who knows what was destroyed exactly?  Who knows what historical record was modified to support that?

If you want to say the Councils did not address written scriptures and what was accepted as canon, then go ahead.  Many experts in the study will disagree with you.  Even the Catholic Church disagrees with that statement.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, so what 2nd or 3rd century father disagreed with that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please use the quote feature correctly, keeping statements in their entirety.  I will not address otherwise.

I understand the fundamentals of the subject at hand.  I know the differences between the written canon and the established.  I'm not offended by the inference.

I don't have much more to contribute on this one, as my notes and past studies led me to a different interpretation than any side that has been presented in this thread by the OP, the Catholic Church or Protestant Apologetics.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> "Pretty much the same" and universal acceptance of an existing canon is very different.



From a practical viewpoint, I disagree.  That's why I asked the questions about specific doctrines and NT books.  The books that were most often questioned were 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation and James.  If you toss those books out of the NT, what fundamental Christian doctrine would change? 




WTM45 said:


> The very fact that theological teachings were debated and books were DESTROYED ... Who knows what was destroyed exactly?  Who knows what historical record was modified to support that?



OK, so you're confident writings were destroyed, but you have no idea what was destroyed.  Now, we're back to the conspiracy theories.  I've said this before, as well:  this position requires no less faith than that of any believer.




WTM45 said:


> We have the advantage of looking at what exists now and comparing it to what has been historically recorded as existing then.



Precisely what I said earlier:  compare modern Bibles to scripture quotations in anti-Nicene writings and show me the differences.




WTM45 said:


> If you want to say the Councils did not address written scriptures and what was accepted as canon, then go ahead.



I said the first seven didn't.  You can read a summary here:

http://www.pbcc.org/dc/creeds/councils.html


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 25, 2010)

Depending on when men "toss out" certain books, "Divine Inspiration" just might come into question.  That's pretty fundamental.

It's no conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of scriptural writings.  The very historical records we are privy to and use state it occured.
I honestly believe little of the historical record.  I'm pretty doubtful of the entire process.  I'm honest enough to say I don't know.


----------



## Diogenes (Jan 29, 2010)

Interesting.    

Yet typical.  

Perhaps some might notice that the attention span which demands one paragraph posts and ignores anything longer might be responsible for the problem itself.  Or not.  Perhaps some might even notice the penchant for changing the subject quickly, and changing the focus to minutiae and accusation.  Or not.  Perhaps refutation in some realms is nothing more than a playground game of –“Is so!,”   “Is Not!”   

But, the questions haven’t changed.

Yet, it seems to be the case once again, as always seems to be the case, that the vast knowledge and superior scholarship of the defenders of the Faith renders all others to be either too ignorant or too far beneath their dignity and high position for consideration.  Or adequate explanation.  Folks, categorically rejecting the position of another is hardly proof of your own position, as many in history have discovered.

So, since my knowledge is clearly inferior, as has been written, perhaps my betters might see fit, due to their Christian Charity, to enlighten me.  I have questions.  Got answers?

It has been said repeatedly that I know nothing at all about the Early, Pre-Nicene Christian Church.  This implies, and in fact states aloud, that the accusers DO know quite a lot about the Christian ‘Church’ as it existed in the first 3 centuries A.D.  Lend me some of that knowledge, huh?  If I am “Just. Plain. Wrong,” then it stands to reason that you are just plain right.  So teach me.

This Early Christian Church is spoken of as though it were an accomplished, acknowledged, and well-established organization.  But I can’t seem to find a thing that establishes this characterization to be factually true.  What was the organizational structure of the Christian Church from A.D. 33 to A.D. 325?  Who appointed the Bishops, oversaw the doctrine, and created the orderly dissemination of information and rite that marks a United Church?

Taking up the basis of the discussion at hand, it is continually asserted that the NT is the inspired Original Words of God, as set down by his earthly scribes, and that the authenticity of these Words is perfectly well established.  

But as a superior scholar you must also be aware that virtually all of the early writings were in Greek, and only a few shards exist that can be reliably dated before A.D. 250.  One can point to the bits written by Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius, Mathetes, and even Tertullian (though he aligned with the Montanists, and may not be such a fine example).  One can rely on Athanasius, who was one of the chief defenders of the Nicene Creed, but he wasn’t even born until about 270.  But there are only 341 uncial manuscripts existing that concern the NT, and only 34 date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. The second century ‘manuscript’ is about the same size as a postage stamp and contains only ten words. Over Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant. All actual analysis of both the cursive and uncial reveal that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time. So tell me, how did all these Books come to be written some 217 years and more later without a shred of prior ‘authentication.’?  How is this explained?

And, since you would already know from your superior knowledge and advanced scholarship that virtually no writings prior to 250 exist, how were the ones currently comprising the NT ‘authenticated?’   And by whom?

You would also know, of course, that we have writings from Origen, Tertullian, and even Carpocrates all complaining that their own ‘authentic’ writings were being revised by others, and you would know that all of the various sects in the period dating from about 180 A.D. onward accused all of the others of just such revisions.  Numerous examples of both the accusations and the actual revisions are common among scholars to this day.  And so I ask, innocently, how is it that one version has come to be the ‘authentic’ one, in view of your clear knowledge that the version you personally endorse is clearly ‘authentic?’  What is it that authenticates your NT?

Also – one more question – having clearly determined what even the Harvard Divinity School has as yet not been able to establish, namely that the Gospels in YOUR NT are unerringly authentic and unedited, where exactly did the rest of the NT come from?  Clearly you are able to prove with certain knowledge that the NT is the Word of God, so can you clear up my ignorance a bit by telling me who wrote the rest of it?  

Just trying to clear up my obvious ignorance of the pre-Nicene Christian church here, and learn from those who know better . . . Help a poor lost sheep out here, huh?

(Thank goodness I refrained from jumping ahead 500 years or so from Constantine to Charlemagne.  Boy would there be egg on my face . . . )


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 30, 2010)

I thought this thread was done.  Oh, well.  Before I address your questions, though, let’s revisit a subject.



Diogenes said:


> … some might even notice the penchant for changing the subject quickly, and changing the focus to minutiae…



You can’t even get the attendees of the Council of Nicea right.  That’s not minutiae.  That’s like not knowing which sides fought during the Civil War.  In the OP, you wrote this:

_I did not say that any particular bit of ‘Scripture’ was revised or rewritten “at the Council of Nicea.” As has been pointed out, the Official Agenda of that Council (though murky, nefarious, and wholly revisionist in intent) did not include the actual writing of ‘Scripture.’ That had already been done for them. Officially, they were far more concerned with marginalizing the Eastern Bishops by exclusion and physically eliminating dissenting thought. (Sound familiar?)

Constantine had his own agenda, however, and had spent ten years creating a mountain of fictitious ‘authentication’ to back it up. Having assembled the bulk of the Western ‘Bishops’ at this Council, he essentially turned the situation into a hostage crisis at the point of his sword -- here Constantine gave each a simple choice, which was to ratify his version and swear an oath, or be banished or killed outright. After the few leaders of the opposition suffered just such fates, it took no time at all for the rest of the assembly to see the light._ 

Do you stand by this statement?  If so, I’d love to see a reputable source that agrees with you.  As I noted above, five western bishops attended the Council (plus two deacons.)  That’s five out of approximately 800, so I guess your definition of “bulk” differs from mine.  

Regarding the eastern bishops, you backpedalled  furiously and said this:

_So, insofar as the “Just. Plain. wrong,” accusation goes, methinks you have fallen prey to a common misconception, which is that the world may have ended at the border of the Roman Empire of the time. The fact is that none of the representatives of the various sects of ‘Christian’ thought east of that border were invited. This is normally what historians mean by ‘Eastern’ bishops. If, for example, one calls a ‘Council’ and invites no one who resides west of the border of Georgia, but invites everyone up to that border and holds the meeting in Columbus, I suppose that it is somewhat accurate, though hugely distorted, to claim that the meeting represents the west. The newly conquered eastern portion of the Roman Empire, by the same token, is hardly the East._

Allow me to translate:

“Oops.  Did I say Eastern bishops?  I didn’t mean Eastern bishops.  I meant _Eastern_ bishops.  You know … those bishops from the … ‘other’ east.”

Again, if you can back up any of this with a reputable source, I’d love to hear it.

Sorry to keep harping on this one point, but the reason is simple:  nothing says “I don’t know what I’m talking about” like clear misstatements of facts such as these.

Now on to your other points …




Diogenes said:


> But, the questions haven’t changed.



Well, these questions certainly haven’t changed.  Whenever I ask them, I’m met with the sounds of crickets chirping.  If you’d like to take a shot at them, be my guest.

a) What Christian doctrine is solely the invention of Constantine/Eusebius and not the apostles?

b) Conversely, what Christian doctrine did the apostles teach that Constantine/Eusebius subsequently deleted at Nicea?

Or:

a) What NT book did Constantine/Eusebius add to the canon that had never been accepted by the ante-Nicene church?

b) Conversely, what NT book that had always been accepted by the ante-Nicene church was deleted from the canon at Nicea by Constantine/Eusebius? 




Diogenes said:


> the defenders of the Faith renders all others to be either too ignorant or too far beneath their dignity and high position for consideration.



That’s not true for me.  It’s just that your avalanche of misstatements, your conspiracy theories, and your arguing solely for the sake of argument just sucks the life out of me.




Diogenes said:


> I have questions.  Got answers?



You don’t want answers.  You just want to argue.  Here goes nothing.  (Sigh.)




Diogenes said:


> This Early Christian Church is spoken of as though it were an accomplished, acknowledged, and well-established organization.



It was, and a cursory reading of history will demonstrate that.




Diogenes said:


> But I can’t seem to find a thing that establishes this characterization to be factually true.



That’s not surprising since you’ve obviously read little (if anything) on this subject.  In Acts 2, Peter preaches a sermon on the Day of Pentecost and three thousand people were added to the church.  From that day forward, the church grew rapidly and spread throughout the empire.  You can find more details about the very early church in such writings as the letter of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Clement of Rome, etc.  Penguin Classics has gathered many of these writings together in one small volume called Early Christian Writings:

http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christi...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264874975&sr=1-1

Or, if you have a lot of time on your hands, you can go for the complete ten volumes and 6,000 pages of the ante-Nicene fathers: 

http://www.amazon.com/Ante-Nicene-F...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264875094&sr=1-1

Obviously, though, I don’t expect you to read either of these works.  Your mind is made up, and you’ve bought the “Constantine invented Christianity” theory -- hook, line and sinker.




Diogenes said:


> What was the organizational structure of the Christian Church from A.D. 33 to A.D. 325?  Who appointed the Bishops, oversaw the doctrine, and created the orderly dissemination of information and rite that marks a United Church?



The Apostles were obviously in charge at first (until they were martyred, anyway.)  They appointed bishops who appointed successors.  (That’s called “apostolic succession”.)  Presbyters and deacons assisted the bishops.  That’s the organizational structure of the NT, and it’s the structure that’s followed to this day.  As St. Ignatius said in his “Epistle to the Smyrnaeans” (written right around the turn of the first century):

_See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church._




Diogenes said:


> But as a superior scholar you must also be aware that virtually all of the early writings were in Greek, and only a few shards exist that can be reliably dated before A.D. 250.  One can point to the bits written by Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius, Mathetes, and even Tertullian (though he aligned with the Montanists, and may not be such a fine example).  One can rely on Athanasius, who was one of the chief defenders of the Nicene Creed, but he wasn’t even born until about 270.  But there are only 341 uncial manuscripts existing that concern the NT, and only 34 date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. The second century ‘manuscript’ is about the same size as a postage stamp and contains only ten words. Over Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant. All actual analysis of both the cursive and uncial reveal that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time. So tell me, how did all these Books come to be written some 217 years and more later without a shred of prior ‘authentication.’?  How is this explained?



I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that someone who claims that five bishops constitute the “bulk of the Western bishops” would then say that ten volumes and 6,000 pages are “bits” and “a few shards”.  As I’ve said before, burn every manuscript and every Bible in existence today, and you could replicate the NT just by looking at the scripture quotations of the ante-Nicene fathers.

I don’t know how many times I have to say “you don’t know what you’re talking about” before it sinks in.  




Diogenes said:


> virtually no writings prior to 250 exist



Absolutely, positively, demonstrably false.




Diogenes said:


> You would also know, of course, that we have writings from Origen, Tertullian, and even Carpocrates all complaining that their own ‘authentic’ writings were being revised by others,



How would you know?  You’ve never read them.  From what I can tell, you’d never even heard of them till I mentioned them earlier.




Diogenes said:


> where exactly did the rest of the NT come from?  Clearly you are able to prove with certain knowledge that the NT is the Word of God, so can you clear up my ignorance a bit by telling me who wrote the rest of it?



Paul, Luke, Peter, John, Jude and James.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 30, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> But as a superior scholar you must also be aware that virtually all of the early writings were in Greek, and only a few shards exist that can be reliably dated before A.D. 250.  One can point to the bits written by Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius, Mathetes, and even Tertullian (though he aligned with the Montanists, and may not be such a fine example).  One can rely on Athanasius, who was one of the chief defenders of the Nicene Creed, but he wasn’t even born until about 270.  But there are only 341 uncial manuscripts existing that concern the NT, and only 34 date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. The second century ‘manuscript’ is about the same size as a postage stamp and contains only ten words. Over Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant. All actual analysis of both the cursive and uncial reveal that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time. So tell me, how did all these Books come to be written some 217 years and more later without a shred of prior ‘authentication.’?  How is this explained?
> 
> You would also know, of course, that we have writings from Origen, Tertullian, and even Carpocrates all complaining that their own ‘authentic’ writings were being revised by others, and you would know that all of the various sects in the period dating from about 180 A.D. onward accused all of the others of just such revisions.  Numerous examples of both the accusations and the actual revisions are common among scholars to this day.  And so I ask, innocently, how is it that one version has come to be the ‘authentic’ one, in view of your clear knowledge that the version you personally endorse is clearly ‘authentic?’  What is it that authenticates your NT?



BTW, these two paragraphs are another great “copy and paste” job.  Looks like you’ve abandoned the “mountain man” site, though, and are now using this _Mormon_ site (of all things):

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/2nd-century-corruption-of-scripture/

Let’s take ‘em one at a time:




Diogenes said:


> But there are only 341 uncial manuscripts existing that concern the NT, and only 34 date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century.



Mormon site:

_Approx. 341 uncial manuscripts exist
•  Of the 341, 10% date to before Constantine, only 1 dates to the second century_




Diogenes said:


> The second century ‘manuscript’ is about the same size as a postage stamp and contains only ten words.



Mormon site:

_The 1 second century manuscript is the size of a postage stamp and contains only ten complete words_




Diogenes said:


> Over Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant.



Mormon site:

_99.7% of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption were rampant_




Diogenes said:


> All actual analysis of both the cursive and uncial reveal that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time.



Mormon site:

_“So only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time”_




Diogenes said:


> You would also know, of course, that we have writings from Origen, Tertullian, and even Carpocrates all complaining that their own ‘authentic’ writings were being revised by others, and you would know that all of the various sects in the period dating from about 180 A.D. onward accused all of the others of just such revisions.



Mormon site:

_Clement accused Carpocrates of corrupting the scriptures
Tertullian admits that other sects accuse his own sect of corrupting the scriptures_


Or maybe you were using this site, which says pretty much the same thing:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Corruption_of_Scripture_in_the_Second_Century.html

Either way, the thought of “Mr. All Religion Is Evil” using a _Mormon apologetics site _as a source is hysterical!


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 6, 2010)

Gasp!  You mean to tell me that evil Mormons are citing actual facts also?  And also paraphrasing factual sources?  Why, the nerve of those people!

And you found other sources, on the internet of all places, also citing actual facts?  And similarly paraphrasing those facts?  Shocking!

You’ll have to pardon me, but this is the first time someone has ever told me that the proof that I am wrong is that they could corroborate my facts.  A thing like that takes a moment to sink in. 

Now I realize that shooting the messenger is an age-old response to ideas one doesn’t like, but really, thundering rhetoric condemning ‘apologists’ and ‘conspiracies’ is even farther from the truth than simple denial.  Xenophobia doesn’t create any new truths, nor refute old ones, and the fact that one does not like the people who speak the truth reveals only insecurity, and is largely wasted effort.

But, perhaps you are right – the fact that not a single bit of the NT is known to exist dated prior to the 2nd Century, and the fact that only bits and shards have been discovered of 3rd Century writings that match even a few words of the NT, and the fact that even those few writings are in Greek – well, that is certainly a conspiracy theory devised by evil people to discredit your own certain knowledge to the contrary.  You said aloud that these facts are Just. Plain. Wrong.  So perhaps they are all out to get you.

Let’s skip over the more ridiculous and egregious bits of revisionism, such as the trope about the ‘apostolic succession’ and see if we can get back someplace near the original point.  The point was that the hundreds of various version of the Bible were written by men, revised by men, disseminated by men, and fought over by men.

You say that is patently false.  So you can personally put to rest centuries of conflict and bloodshed all by yourself by simply showing us the original documents where the NT is written by the hand of those you assert to be the actual authors.  Simple, huh?  Boy howdy, won’t that show us how wrong we are?  Pony up your proof that we are wrong, and we’ll quietly queue up to dip ourselves in rivers.

Now, in reasonable discourse among reasonable folks (AKA ‘scholars’) this problem of the lack of extant writings is attributed to any one or a combination of three main factors (not discounting minority arguments which accumulate) – 1. The ‘Apostles’ were simple illiterate fishermen and the like, in an age where literacy was a luxury afforded mainly by the rich, so they could not have written anything at all even if they were motivated to do so; 2. Anything written second-hand, by dictation, would have suffered inevitably first from the scribe’s interpretation and second from the limits of dissemination – hardly anyone could read, including the rulers – and most who could both read and write were in the employ of the rulers (rather guaranteeing persecution if one wrote something the big guy didn’t like); and 3. A couple of centuries later, when this ‘Christianity’ movement was starting to catch on and become a headache for the rulers, those struggling to harness and control it began creating their own versions while systematically eliminating all others by rather extreme measures.  

So, the high points of discussion are – 1. It might not be there because it never was; or 2. It might not be there because humans are so incompetent they can’t even give each other directions to the nearest corner without getting hopelessly lost; or 3. It might not be there because it threatened the ruling class, and they extracted the bits that fed the popular movement, sanitized it for the protection of themselves, then burned the rest and killed anyone who objected.

Nothing much is gained this far down the road by mixing up the signifier with the signified, and trying to create some sort of hyper-specialized code, complete with subtext and paratext, in order to achieve a conquest of the verbal and physical territoriality you so avidly seek.  Pretending to be in sole possession of the ‘truth,’ while others simply wish to determine what that might be, adds nothing to any discussion, and actually marginalizes your position and marks you as a member of the fringe elements for whom the extent of their cultural and academic education is contained in television re-runs and shrunken and shriveled factional religious fundamentalism masquerading as knowledge.

Stand and deliver your ‘truth’. Prove your position beyond a reasonable doubt – if you contend that these writings do exist, then put them on the table.  Lacking that, please put a cork in the xenophobic, evangelistic rhetoric and the thundering condemnations, and pull up a chair, crack a beer, and join the discussion like a reasonable, intelligent human.  The constant, belligerent ignorance gets very tiresome.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

I can't believe you're still at this.

The constant, belligerent ignorance gets very tiresome?

Pot, meet kettle! 

Seriously, though -- how galling was it for you to resort to mining a Mormon site for data?  That's like Obama listening to Rush Limbaugh to get ideas.

I'll try to respond more later.  It won't be easy, though.  Like someone said earlier, I'm just feeling sorry for you at this point.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 6, 2010)

Sigh.

Please.  Don't bother.

I think we all have the true measure of you now.

Good luck with your studies.  Let us know what the voices reveal.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 6, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Gasp!  You mean to tell me that evil Mormons are citing actual facts also?  And also paraphrasing factual sources?  Why, the nerve of those people!
> 
> And you found other sources, on the internet of all places, also citing actual facts?  And similarly paraphrasing those facts?  Shocking!
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Please.  Don't bother.
> 
> ...



Go back to sleep.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

How can someone be dismissed out of hand simply because some other sources agree with their stance?
Each view has the right to present their argument.
And no stance becomes any more credible than the other when one resorts to personal insult and innuendo.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> What is the earliest 'list' of NT books we have?    I'm asking because I don't know.    Just curious as to what was on it.



This link is a fair reference....but it is a culmination of only a few sources.
http://www.ntcanon.org/writings.shtml

I'll dig around for a concise Roman Catholic Church link.  They are without a doubt the foremost authority on the subject, as they actually/physically hold the historical records.  The New Advent Encyclopedia is a start.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Gasp!  You mean to tell me that evil Mormons are citing actual facts also?  And also paraphrasing factual sources?  Why, the nerve of those people!
> 
> And you found other sources, on the internet of all places, also citing actual facts?  And similarly paraphrasing those facts?  Shocking!
> 
> You’ll have to pardon me, but this is the first time someone has ever told me that the proof that I am wrong is that they could corroborate my facts.



Who said they were facts?    You think that just because something is on the internet it must be true?  You seem to know as little about Mormon doctrine as you do about the ante-Nicene church.  Because they believe Joseph Smith’s vision of the angel Moroni, and they believe that Jesus visited North America and preached to the native people, they must then declare that this had to happen because of the apostasy of the early church.  They _need_ for this to be true.  Their entire theology _demands_ that this be true.  So, they have just as much of an agenda as you claim Constantine did, and I take this with a BIG grain of salt.




Diogenes said:


> Pony up your proof that we are wrong, and we’ll quietly queue up to dip ourselves in rivers.



No you won’t.  I’ve “ponied up” plenty.  You just ignore it and move on to your next epic post.  I absolutely showed your errors on the eastern/western bishops at Nicea, and you still haven’t admitted  you were wrong about that.  (As I said before, if you can’t even get that right, who are you to talk about “facts”? 

I also mentioned the reams of writings by the ante-Nicene fathers.  You can access them online or order the hard copy from Amazon.  Of course, I don’t expect you to do either. 




Diogenes said:


> Now, in reasonable discourse among reasonable folks (AKA ‘scholars’) this problem of the lack of extant writings is attributed to any one or a combination of three main factors (not discounting minority arguments which accumulate) – 1. The ‘Apostles’ were simple illiterate fishermen and the like, in an age where literacy was a luxury afforded mainly by the rich, so they could not have written anything at all even if they were motivated to do so; 2. Anything written second-hand, by dictation, would have suffered inevitably first from the scribe’s interpretation and second from the limits of dissemination – hardly anyone could read, including the rulers – and most who could both read and write were in the employ of the rulers (rather guaranteeing persecution if one wrote something the big guy didn’t like); and 3. A couple of centuries later, when this ‘Christianity’ movement was starting to catch on and become a headache for the rulers, those struggling to harness and control it began creating their own versions while systematically eliminating all others by rather extreme measures.
> 
> So, the high points of discussion are – 1. It might not be there because it never was; or 2. It might not be there because humans are so incompetent they can’t even give each other directions to the nearest corner without getting hopelessly lost; or 3. It might not be there because it threatened the ruling class, and they extracted the bits that fed the popular movement, sanitized it for the protection of themselves, then burned the rest and killed anyone who objected.
> 
> ...



You just keep rewriting the same post.  I really don’t know what you want me to say that I haven’t already said fourteen times.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> I think we all have the true measure of you now.



Yes, I'm the guy who's actually read the material you refuse to read.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> How can someone be dismissed out of hand simply because some other sources agree with their stance?



See here:



centerpin fan said:


> Who said they were facts?    You think that just because something is on the internet it must be true?  You seem to know as little about Mormon doctrine as you do about the ante-Nicene church.  Because they believe Joseph Smith’s vision of the angel Moroni, and they believe that Jesus visited North America and preached to the native people, they must then declare that this had to happen because of the apostasy of the early church.  They _need_ for this to be true.  Their entire theology _demands_ that this be true.  So, they have just as much of an agenda as you claim Constantine did, and I take this with a BIG grain of salt.



Besides, when he's not online here, he's probably on some Mormon site giving them a hard time.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

Early apostolic writings and teachings most certainly had to be a big part of the discussions at Nicea.

Since Arianism and the teachings of Arius was the biggest concern, the very information found and promoted within the known written works that described Jesus and his relationship to the God of Abraham had to be taken into review.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> The canon of early apostolic writings and teachings most certainly had to be a big part of the discussions at Nicea.



Can you post any source that says the "canon of scripture" was a topic of discussion at Nicea?




WTM45 said:


> Since Arianism and the teachings of Arius was the biggest concern, the very information found and promoted within the known written works that described Jesus and his relationship to the God of Abraham had to be taken into review.



True, but what books should/should not be included in the NT was not a point of discussion.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

There were no "Books of the NT" there.
Just writings.
And those writings were used to come to a concensus vote.
Those who did not agree were excommunicated.
They had to come to a concensus over what writings were to be used going forward, what the writings actually said and intended and just how to teach those selected writings to the masses.

The "canon" of the NT we see today actually came together later.
It was a process.  Nicea was an early step in that process.

To say the writings and their interpretation were not a part of the discussion at Nicea is dishonest.  It was those very writings and interpretations that led the majority to denounce Arius.

There was NO clear cut "NT" at Nicea.  Only widely scattered works that a select few had seen/studied/read.  Nicea was the first move towards getting the writings in one place and under a unified interpretation.

It stands to reason these writings WERE a very important point of discussion, as they were at the very centerpoint for the whole event.
http://www.ntcanon.org/writings.shtml

It's a much stronger assumption to make that they discussed applicability and interpretation at length as opposed to assume nothing was said about what is and what is not to be taught.  NONE OF THEM WERE ON THE SAME SHEET OF MUSIC UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.  Period.  The writings were scattered about and only those with access and the ability to read GREEK along with ARAMAIC even knew what they actually said.
Word of mouth was the theme of the day, up until that point in time.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Early apostolic writings and teachings most certainly had to be a big part of the discussions at Nicea.
> 
> Since Arianism and the teachings of Arius was the biggest concern, the very information found and promoted within the known written works that described Jesus and his relationship to the God of Abraham had to be taken into review.



OK, since you removed "canon", I'll respond to this updated post.

Did St. Athanasius and the other defenders of orthodoxy use scripture, writings of the early fathers, and ancient hymns and liturgies of the church to refute Arius and his followers?  Yes.

Did anybody discuss what books should/should not be included in the canon of scripture at Nicea?  No.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, since you removed "canon", I'll respond to this updated post.
> 
> Did St. Athanasius and the other defenders of orthodoxy use scripture, writings of the early fathers, and ancient hymns and liturgies of the church to refute Arius and his followers?  Yes.
> 
> Did anybody discuss what books should/should not be included in the canon of scripture at Nicea?  No.



Since there WAS no established "canon" of scriptures, anything thrown out at Nicea was a step towards that resulting canon.
There was most definately discussion regarding what was accepted there and what was subsequently burned or destroyed.  I'd say that is clearly a discussion of what was to survive post Nicea, and what was to be later reviewed again and again in subsequent councils.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> And those writings were used to come to a concensus vote.



Yes -- a consensus on Arianism.

Nicea had NOTHING to do with the canon of scripture. They discussed Arius, the date of Easter, and a few other issues -- NOT the canon.

Did they discuss Arius' teachings in light of scripture?  Yes.

Did they say, "Hey, this Gospel of Thomas actually supports Arius' position, so let's toss it out"?  No.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 6, 2010)

In your view, you can say that because there was no "canon of scripture."
Just a group of various writings.

Others see the very idea of bringing those writings together and interpreting them as a group for ANY concensus to be an editing process.  Even if the interpretation was only intended to result in a judgement for or against Arianism, by the very result it also validated what was left as accepted and approved for teaching.
And, the government approved and financed it.  Used its authority to enforce the decisions made there too.
More than a few academic authorities have shared that stance with me over the years.


Please have the last word on this one.  I've said all I wish to, maybe more than I wanted.  My notes and resource books are getting put away.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2010)

I've said about all I can say.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 8, 2010)

“Who said they were facts?”  Um?  Just about everyone who has ever actually studied the subject with even a shred of objectivity, for a start . . . Once again your xenophobia is showing  . . . If you reject the Mormons on principle, that hardly refutes the meticulous research they tend to conduct.  Similarly, you would then have to reject the Vatican, every major professor and expert at every divinity school in the world, and the simple fact that nobody at all can produce a since document in which the original words of the NT were written in the hand of those claimed to be the authors.  Not one.  Sounds like an uphill battle to me . . . So it seemed reasonable to ask you to produce your own facts, since you seem so adamant that everyone else in the world is wrong about this.   

“I absolutely showed your errors on the eastern/western bishops at Nicea . . . “  Um?  No. You deliberately misinterpreted and ran with your own thought as though it were a definitive ‘Gotcha!’  As I elaborated, the world did not end at the borders of the Roman Empire, and although you seem to  wish to disagree, there actually were humans East of that border, budding little Christians even, who scared Constantine no end.  East, you see, ran all the way to the Pacific Ocean, even way back then.  Unless, again, you have ‘facts’ that refute this fairly obvious thought.

“I also mentioned the reams of writings by the ante-Nicene fathers.”  And I could mention reams of writings by Dr. Seuss and the Sumerians, but none of those writings you cite are contained in your Book.  We are not discussing whether or not anyone at all could write, we are discussing the original texts of the NT, which are contended to be authored by the Apostles and dictated to them by God himself.  Writings by everyone and their maiden aunt can be shown to have existed, but they have no more bearing on the extant content of your NT than an editorial in the local newspaper.  And if you contend that those writings do have such a bearing, then I’m afraid you’ve undermined your own point.  

“True, but what books should/should not be included in the NT was not a point of discussion.”  Funny – the Agenda of the Council was not, once again, the point.  Again you deliberately misread in some odd zeal to find any niggling ‘Gotcha!’ that you can invent – I said quite clearly, several times, that Constantine’s ‘approved’ version of the NT had been in the works for some ten years or more prior to his calling this ‘Council,’ and it certainly was not put up for a vote.  Not only wasn’t it ‘discussed’ or ‘debated’ at Nicea, anyone who wanted to try to do so was condemned, exiled, or killed outright.  I said quite simply that Constantine used this ‘Council’ as an opportunity to shove his version down their throats at sword-point, and he did so quite successfully.  There is ample evidence to suggest that this maneuver was more political than truly religious, since Constantine himself continued to observe the previous ‘pagan’ beliefs throughout his life; and since the eastern border of his empire, where such ‘consolidation’ was forced was the least secure of his borders, and he was desperately in need of a galvanizing ideal.  

“Did anybody discuss what books should/should not be included in the canon of scripture at Nicea? No.”  Well, I’m glad you were there to know exactly what anyone discussed.  Perhaps you have transcripts from the stenographer that we can review?  But you are partially right -- The official purpose of the ‘Council’ was not, as you say, to discuss ‘scripture,’ but the fact remains that Constantine,  largely through Eusebius, had already compiled his own official version of the NT, had manufactured his ‘authentication’ of that version out of whole cloth, and allowed no one to leave that ‘Council’ without first swearing allegiance.  This wasn’t done in some sort of open congress – such things were unheard of then – you obeyed the Emperor or he had you killed.  Much simpler than discussing things, and oddly similar to the way many ‘religious leaders’ behave even today.

“Did they say, "Hey, this Gospel of Thomas actually supports Arius' position, so let's toss it out"? No.”  Again, you are right.  They weren’t allowed to ‘discuss’ any such thing.  Constantine had already tossed it out, along with Arius and any dissent.  Arius was invited solely to make a public display of his humiliation and exile for the sin of disagreeing with the Emperor, as a singular object lesson to anyone else present who might consider similar disagreement.

The point, overall, as WTM45 has made much more delicately than I, is that the writings and even the versions and translations of those writings were made by men, selected for inclusion or exclusion by men, made into official doctrine or rejected doctrine by men, and all other, earlier versions and ‘preachers’ of those versions were burned and destroyed by the men who made those decisions.  Not so much different, in spirit, than what goes on today, just done much more brutally and directly.  And quite efficiently, it appears.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Bible, regardless of which of the several dozen versions you hold dear, is basically the work of Man.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

Like I said, you just keep rewriting the same post.  I'm not gonna keep rewriting mine.  You just don't know what you're talking about.

BTW, I'm STILL laughing about you using a Mormon site as  a source.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 8, 2010)

Sorry to be wasting your time then, sir.  Clearly your scholarship is superior by having been unrevealed, and my doubting your unsupported rejection of facts has surely been uncalled for.  

If you do not like the ideas, or the sources of the ideas, then they are surely unfounded and untrue.  I accept that idea without question.  Your input has been very valuable, and adds much to both the spirit of discussion and the ongoing pursuit of knowledge.

With your kind permission, may I forward your thoughts to the Harvard Divinity School, and to Cornell, and the like, so that they might also be enlightened by your deeply thought out insights?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> With your kind permission, may I forward your thoughts to the Harvard Divinity School, and to Cornell, and the like, so that they might also be enlightened by your deeply thought out insights?



Harvard?  Cornell?  Wouldn't you prefer Brigham Young?


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 8, 2010)

Another deeply thought out and heartfelt post, well researched and strongly supported, and again I thank you for spending the time to seek out the properly mocking animated smiley to prove your positions and contentions.  

It is always a pleasure to discuss serious subjects with a peer.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 8, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> The inescapable conclusion is that the Bible, regardless of which of the several dozen versions you hold dear, is basically the work of Man.



I really don't think that is the point of contention between those who are followers of the faith and those who are not.  Realists have to admit humans spoke and wrote the words we have today, even if they are quoting God or Jesus.

The major issue here is if those words, written, edited and translated into different languages is divinely inspired by the creator deity.


Question to all:  
Was Jesus literate?  Could he read and write?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Question to all:
> Was Jesus literate?  Could he read and write?



In Luke 4, Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue.  

In John 8, he writes something on the ground when the woman caught in adultery is brought to him.  That's the only NT account of Him writing anything.

However, early in Eusebius' _History of the Church_, he mentions that Jesus wrote a letter to some local politician/centurion (I forget which.)  Eusebius actually includes the text of the letter, but equivocates on its authenticity.  If you like, I could post the letter.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 8, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> In Luke 4, Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue.
> 
> In John 8, he writes something on the ground when the woman caught in adultery is brought to him.  That's the only NT account of Him writing anything.
> 
> However, early in Eusebius' _History of the Church_, he mentions that Jesus wrote a letter to some local politician/centurion (I forget which.)  Eusebius actually includes the text of the letter, but equivocates on its authenticity.



I knew you would respond!

Second question.  Why did he not record for posterity his thoughts, his ideas, his teachings in a more permanent manner?  Was it a dependance solely based on the charge he gave his disciples/apostles?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> I knew you would respond!
> 
> Second question.  Why did he not record for posterity his thoughts, his ideas, his teachings in a more permanent manner?  Was it a dependance solely based on the charge he gave his disciples/apostles?



I think so.  Also, Christianity is all about _Christ_, not just what He taught.  That point is made much more elegantly than I ever could in this article by Archbishop Hilarion.  It's pretty long (about 45 pages), but it's the best thing I've ever read on the subject.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/Saint-Hilarion-Holy-Scripture-and-the-Church.pdf


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Another deeply thought out and heartfelt post, well researched and strongly supported, and again I thank you for spending the time to seek out the properly mocking animated smiley to prove your positions and contentions.
> 
> It is always a pleasure to discuss serious subjects with a peer.



You leave me no other options.  I tried the "deeply thought out ... well researched and strongly supported" route, but you're immune to it.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 8, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I think so.  Also, Christianity is all about _Christ_, not just what He taught.  That point is made much more elegantly than I ever could in this article by Archbishop Hilarion.  It's pretty long (about 45 pages), but it's the best thing I've ever read on the subject.
> 
> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/Saint-Hilarion-Holy-Scripture-and-the-Church.pdf



Thanks for the reading reference!  I'll give that a go this evening at home.

But it begs me to ask.....should the focus be so much on Jesus rather than on his message and what he taught about God?
Maybe the reading this evening will answer that.


----------



## christianhunter (Feb 8, 2010)

I just could not help myself.Some people do not have all of thier dux in a row,not even thier "redux".


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 8, 2010)

christianhunter said:


> I just could not help myself.Some people do not have all of thier dux in a row,not even thier "redux".



"THUMP"

Did we just run over something?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Feb 8, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> You leave me no other options.  I tried the "deeply thought out ... well researched and strongly supported" route, but you're immune to it.



I wouldn't say he's immune to it...he just masks his symptoms.    Andrew Flew did the same thing for years.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 8, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Maybe the reading this evening will answer that.



It should.  

I'll take another look at it tonight, too.


----------



## Dominic (Feb 11, 2010)

Beware of the person of one book. 

- St. Thomas Aquinas


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 11, 2010)

What if God wanted the Bible to change over time?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> What if God wanted the Bible to change over time?



One needs discernment powers to know the answer to that.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 11, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> One needs discernment powers to know the answer to that.



Well, we are here chatting about it so it is some what obscure...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> What if God wanted the Bible to change over time?



but it didn't.    it's been suggested on here many times, but there is no evidence that scriptures have changed through the centuries.    Having very early manuscript copies allows anyone to verify the accuracy of what we have today in our bible.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 12, 2010)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> but it didn't.



You sure about that?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Well, we are here chatting about it so it is some what obscure...



Obscure, indeed.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 17, 2010)

“I tried the "deeply thought out ... well researched and strongly supported" route, but you're immune to it.”

Well, to a degree.  I’m immune, as you notice, to the parts that are not well thought out, well researched, or strongly supported.  Aside from that, I’m all ears to Witnesses.  Honest.  All you offered was rejection of thought and research, not thought or research in return.  Maybe a list of the single source of knowledge you actually will accept would help out . . . 

Jokes and jousting aside, there is a serious paucity of written or even second-hand evidence supporting any NT chapter.  Here the theosophy branches strongly, and some take up the bits and shards, and the third and fourth-hand writings of those who claimed knowledge.  But that was two or three centuries later, and is akin to my stating with factual conviction that I know without a doubt what happened at a certain place and time in 1760 or so, and quoting the exact words, deeds, and intentions of those who lived at the time.  Not even marginally credible.  

This: “ . . . but there is no evidence that scriptures have changed through the centuries. Having very early manuscript copies allows anyone to verify the accuracy of what we have today in our bible,” – that is simple nonsense.  If that were the case there would only be one Bible and one NT – not dozens of competing versions.  A zeal to accept and verify only one as the Truth is admirable, but not demonstrable.  Put up your ‘very early manuscript copies,’ and date them with academic rigor.  I’ll wait.

There are no such things, if, for no other reason, than the Protestant Reformation (and there are plenty more reasons, from Constantine to Charlemagne, but that is one of my favorites).  Zealous defense mechanisms aside, even a rudimentary scholarship shows the myriad versions of the NT that resulted, even that late in history (meaning, the Reformation).  What allowed that to happen – the wholesale re-writing by everyone and their maiden aunt – was that there actually wasn’t a single definitive text (a complete, or even partially complete early manuscript copy of the NT, dated prior to Constantine).  If there had been a single Word of God, written and authentic, then why bother splintering into a few dozen sects over it?     

One can like that truth, or not like it, but so far it remains a point of fact, barring any sudden new discoveries.  Again, as I’ve said, there are a number of theories put forth as to why that is true, and any, all, or some combination of those theories might prove accurate.

I suspect, and most objective observers agree, that early Christianity was a sort of grass-roots movement among the ‘peasants,’ who found a common cause to resist the tyranny of Empire during a time in history when nearly everyone was either slave or indentured.  This wild-fire resistance and abstract ‘empowerment’ of the lower classes posed a problem, and the ‘ruling’ class realized that it was far better to harness this movement than to resist it.  Much of the appeal of the religion was that the man, Christ, was a commoner, and he was killed largely because his message of empowerment of the underclass threatened the established power structure.  He was, in short, seen as a ‘rabble-rouser.’ (Sound familiar?) But the underclass also couldn’t read, and it seems that neither the man nor his immediate followers could write, so it was fairly simple to create a new sort of power structure that did not appear to be Empire, but which largely was.    

Society, at the time, was polytheistic (as Constantine, the cynical know-it-all, remained until his death), and had no real problem absorbing this new ‘god’ seamlessly, so long as that compromise meant peace domestically and cooperation against myriad enemies. Plus preventing a ‘peasant’ revolt, which was about all he needed.  But.  Think about it.  Even a cursory look at modern history reveals that power bends, but never breaks.  Absorbing a minority, and appeasing them, requires a quid-pro-quo, and that was simply that they recognize that Church and State are actually one and the same.  Easy enough to do if you are the Emperor, and own all of the swords.

Remember here, if you wish, that the much later Scottish and Early American ideas of the separation of Church and State were revolutionary concepts.  Even in the 1700’s the King of England dictated the State religion.  Today, in 2010, Saint Valentine’s Day is outlawed in Saudi Arabia, the Egyptian national soccer team places skills and adherence to Islam as equal qualifications for membership, all of Iran is a theocracy, China has all but outlawed religious practice in organized form, and there are folks in the US on trial for killing abortion doctors, because they disagreed on religious grounds.  Church and State, at odds, as ever.  State wins, eventually.  Always has. 

Not so hard to imagine then, and factually proven, that the burning of dissenting books, and people, at the hand of Empire, was a fact of life for folks in the third century.  Thank goodness for the intellectual discipline of the Greeks, huh?  If not for them, even the little that is ‘known’ would have been lost.  

So who won the race to co-opt the peasants and establish the newest part of the State Religion, way back then?  Again, theories abound.  Hard to say.  The struggle for absolute power over the hearts and minds of men got pretty muddy, and for a time the Church got uppity and raised armies, and the State raised armies, and they fought it out for centuries (some would say, especially in Ireland, that it has never ended).  

And, not to oversimplify, but limited space dictates a synopsis – what does Church and State have in common?  The sheer gall to make laws serving only their own aims, and the hubris to demand obedience.  All of the hundreds of Churches, and all of the hundreds of States share that trait.  But, again, State has always prevailed.  

So.  Does one suppose that the fact of the existence of all those opposing governments and all of those opposing religions speaks to one singular truth?  Or would one more correctly conclude that words serve the purpose of men, aimed at closing the eyes of the ‘peasants,’  (Read: Congregation), and words used mostly in the art of avoidance, not of revelation, designed to appease their fears, while compelling them to pay for the aims of power?

Sound familiar?  Think.  Do not simply accept.

(And for those who do not read ‘long posts’ – thank goodness, and please do not respond – if a ‘long post’ is beyond your attention span we’ll find it difficult to believe that you’ve ever read an entire book, which is much longer . . . )

(And GT – wake up.)


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 17, 2010)

I wish you wrote a cliff notes version of your post Dio.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 17, 2010)

(An aside for Centerpin – “BTW, I'm STILL laughing about you using a Mormon site as a source.”

It is hard not to notice your vehement and scorching disdain for your fellow Christian sects, and actually of anyone who is not in lockstep agreement with your own sect, as evidenced by your characterization of the Mormons (and of myself as well), so I finally went and looked at what might be getting yer panties all in a twist.  And, oddly enough, it looks like they are reading, learning from, and paraphrasing the same sources I am.  So I can see your problem.  Somebody else knows that even Luke/Acts was a dual work of inspired fiction by the same author, modeled almost identically after the Aenid in form, plotting, and phrasing.   But you needn’t single out myself and the Mormons for your single-minded, self-righteous, and wholly unsupported rejection of all things that you do not wish to be true.            

You see, thinking people have rather open minds about such things, and rely on such diverse contemporary scholars as Marianne Bonz, of the Harvard Theological Review (who also points out that prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest surviving copy of the Bible in Hebrew (OT) was dated only to the tenth century); Marilyn Mellowes, Robert Alter, Harvey Cox, Wayne Meeks, Sam Harris, John Stek, Wayne Grudem, Burton Mack, Elaine Pagels, Michael White, and even Helmut Koester. We tend to read a lot, and sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, by using our own intellect, instead of relying entirely on the screechings of profit-motivated egomaniacs in pulpits.

For my money, after reading some of their stuff, those Mormons seem to be a pretty well-read bunch of folks, whereas the entire depth of your scholarship seems steeped in bias, bigotry, rejection of ideas simply because of the source itself, and a total reliance on a childish playground game of digging in your heels, covering your ears, and continually screaming, “IS NOT!”

The word is already out, you see, and trying to contain it by rejection is hardly useful.  The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, and dozens of other archaeological sources, along with no small amount of objective analysis is quite revealing, and is pretty common knowledge outside of your own closed-minded ramparts.

Even the way Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the first three (synoptic) gospels is markedly different than the way he talks in John, and the word ‘Gospel’ was co-opted from the ‘glad tidings’ of Augustus, dated prior to the birth of Jesus, and inscribed in Priene (modern-day Turkey).  Celebrating Augustus, the inscription reads, in part: “Providence. . .[has sent] us and our descendants a savior, who has put an end to war and established all things. . . .And since the Caesar through his appearance has exceeded the hopes of all former glad tidings (gospels, as literally written), surpassing not only the benefactors who came before him but also leaving no hope that anyone in the future would surpass him, and since for the world the birthday of the god was the beginning of his glad tidings. . . .” 

Sound familiar?  Seems to me that if you redirected that fierce and vindictively  protectionist intellect of yours towards a rather more objective exploration of what may or may not be true, and let some of the openly hostile bigotry towards your ‘opponents’ go, you might become a formidable debating partner.

I like a good rough and tumble argument as well as the next guy, but facts are facts pal, and shooting down the messenger on a personal level is hardly a decent basis for a discussion. )


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2010)

I disagree with the Mormons but have no disdain for them.  I am awed by their commitment to evangelism.  They put most Christians to shame.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 18, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “I tried the "deeply thought out ... well researched and strongly supported" route, but you're immune to it.”
> 
> Well, to a degree.  I’m immune, as you notice, to the parts that are not well thought out, well researched, or strongly supported.  Aside from that, I’m all ears to Witnesses.  Honest.  All you offered was rejection of thought and research, not thought or research in return.  Maybe a list of the single source of knowledge you actually will accept would help out . . .
> 
> ...



I'm awake.....or at least I was...... till I started on your current tome. Had three extended naps.....thanks. For the insomniac who plies the waters of this forum, your contribution is a God-send! Your pomp and drivel seem to have the effect of a sleeping potion. Perhaps you would like a transfer to the Around The Campfire forum? Drivelers seem to be more appreciated there.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 20, 2010)

“I'm awake.....or at least I was...... till I started on your current tome. Had three extended naps.....thanks. For the insomniac who plies the waters of this forum, your contribution is a God-send! Your pomp and drivel seem to have the effect of a sleeping potion. Perhaps you would like a transfer to the Around The Campfire forum? Drivelers seem to be more appreciated there.”

Tell ya what GT --  the first time you add something actually valuable, scholarly, well-researched, defensible, and valid to a discussion, we’ll quit considering you to be that annoying little dog who is always trying to get attention by humping people’s legs.  

Read something.  Learn something.  Then say something that reflects that you have done so.  Short of that – well, go find someone who cares that the Third-Grade was the limit of your development.  Heckling is neither discussion nor contribution.  It is childish nonsense, and is neither welcome nor worth our time.


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 22, 2010)

Back to the topic at hand – for those who are already highly distressed by the problems of authenticating any of the writings in any of the various versions of the NT --  it gets worse.

Now, I’ll be away again all week, so you’ll have plenty of time to mull this next part over.

You see, much of the dogma of the fundamentalists revolves around various contentions that OT ‘prophecies’ were somehow ‘fulfilled,’ proving to them that they have it all straight. And the OT is cited as the foundation of the NT, which simply answered, fulfilled,  and expanded the OT due to new developments that the Christians decided were Divine and the Jews decided were hogwash, and so the OT is included in the Christian Bible, but the NT is not included in the Torah or Talmud. 

But the OT is an even deeper quagmire of doubtful dates, sources, and authentications.  To begin with, the Israelites were a pretty small tribe, representing only a very small fraction of humanity at the time that Moses was said to have written this Pentateuch that starts the OT.  So to even imply that the OT was the extant wisdom of all mankind prior to the OT is sadly misguided.  Hardly anyone on the planet adhered to the ‘Judeo’ portion that was the fore-runner to the ‘Judeo-Christian’ story.

Also, most serious scholars doubt, and many are willing to say aloud, that there might, maybe, have been somebody named Moses, someplace, sometime . . . but the contentions that the Pentateuch was or even could have been written by a single person at a single time in history hold no water.  Also, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, no documented and consistent version of the OT was known to exist dated prior to the tenth century, well after the NT was into its fiftieth or sixtieth round of editing.  And the Dead Sea Scrolls only push back the dates a bit, and so far do not in and of themselves contain a singular version of the OT.  

Now, I realize that lacking an authentic, single version of the NT is a serious inconvenience.  But folks, there isn’t even an authentic OT, and that fact even messes up the Islamics . . .  Truth is, not only do the cathedrals lack any demonstration of a ‘divine’ foundation, but there is similarly shaky ground beneath the synagogues and mosques.


----------



## tell sackett (Feb 22, 2010)

"...have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."


----------



## Diogenes (Feb 22, 2010)

“1 Corinthians 13:1 (New King James Version)
 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.”

Geez, at least use the whole quote, and tell us just who exactly wrote it, and be prepared to authenticate the author of your own choice . . .  yanking bits and parts at random out of the Book you are defending is a pretty poor defense of the Book itself, don’t you think?

Seems a bit more like manning the ramparts, once again, and using quotes from old ‘Gumby’ episodes to try to ridicule those who failed to properly believe in Gumby.  

If your quote is actually the spoken word of your God, or even of the author you wish to attribute to the whole ‘Corinthians’ bit, then place some evidence that this is the case on the table.  (Note that King James might have had something to do with the ‘King James Version,’ else they might have as easily called it the ‘Gumby Version.’  But they didn’t.)  Lacking that evidence, which you and I both know does not exist, you are doing little more than bandying about ‘drive-by Christianity’ at its most spiteful and vindictive, and giving the effort to justify the Bible on its Divine merits a black eye. 

Perfectly understandable, of course, but hardly scholarly and spectacularly unconvincing as intelligent arguments go . . . 

Zippy the Pinhead says, “Laundry isn’t the Fifth Dimension.  Mail is the Fifth Dimension.”  See there?  Zippy said it!  And I can even prove it!  Now how in the heck can Zippy have more credibility than the Most Holy Book?  Thus it is proven:  Zippy is actually God.  Or at least one of his Divinely Inspired Scribes.  And not only can’t you disprove that Mail is far superior to Laundry, but you can’t prove that Zippy is not God.  And I have direct and easily authenticated proof that the new God, Zippy, actually said those words.  So please stop in at the new Cathedral of Zippy the Authentic, and please leave a bit of your wallet as a tithe . . .  the Ministry needs your support in order to Spread the Good Word . . . .

Are you beginning to see the problem at hand?

Now, if your example, partially quoted, is meant to prove that even though you, too, speak with the tongues of men, but are not the ‘sounding brass’ or ‘clanging cymbal’ because you meet the sole exception the quote offers – which is that you have ‘love’ – then perhaps you’ll be so kind as to tell all of the teenagers and talk show hosts and advice column writers and magazine editors and teary-eyed Country Music singers out there just what the definition of ‘love’ actually is, so they can stop annoying the rest of us into an early grave of exasperation . . .

Personally, I’m confident that you can do it.  Anyone who has the ability to take seven words out of a twenty-four word sentence, and out of the context of an entirely huge and disjointed literary work,  and use them so effectively to make such a powerful rebuttal is clearly a man of unique genius.  So, go on – tell us . . .  

Only those with ‘love,’ you just said, are not simply noisy distractions, so tell us, wise one, of love.  (How it fits into the idea at hand, of course, wouldn’t be a bad thing to fit in also, if it pleases you, but I’d hate to cramp your inspired style by asking if you have anything actually concrete to offer towards enlightening this particular Forum or this particular discussion.  Getting the rest of the misty-eyed dreamers off our backs with your singular definition of ‘love’ would be fine as a start).


----------



## gtparts (Feb 22, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “1 Corinthians 13:1 (New King James Version)
> Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.”
> 
> Geez, at least use the whole quote, and tell us just who exactly wrote it, and be prepared to authenticate the author of your own choice . . .  yanking bits and parts at random out of the Book you are defending is a pretty poor defense of the Book itself, don’t you think?
> ...



Lotta nice brass and cymbal work there, dio? Whack your gong......no one is listening.

If there is one thing more uninspiring than the broadcast ignorance of the unbeliever, it is the bitter, biased, broadcast ignorance of the unbeliever.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Lotta nice brass and cymbal work there, dio? Whack your gong......no one is listening.
> 
> If there is one thing more uninspiring than the broadcast ignorance of the unbeliever, it is the bitter, biased, broadcast ignorance of the unbeliever.



There exists a significant amount of fact in his posts.
People are listening.  Many historians are in agreement.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> There exists a significant amount of fact in his posts.



Unfortunately, the facts in his posts are hopelessly lost amongst and surrounded by baseless opinion and a condescending vitriolic voice.

But, I like the fact that he's here.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Unfortunately, the facts in his posts are hopelessly lost amongst and surrounded by baseless opinion and a condescending vitriolic voice.
> 
> But, I like the fact that he's here.



His delivery is sometimes akin to a milk truck crashing into the store rather than the driver simply bringing the product in via handtruck.

But lots of historians and authorities on religious belief systems agree with him on many points.  And it is very worthwhile to investigate and address them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2010)

I disagree.


----------



## Madman (Feb 23, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> I disagree.



Me too.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> I disagree.



And your way of wording that disagreement is what makes the discussion interesting and lively!


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2010)

I know it man....


that's probably the most to the point posted I've ever made!


----------



## Inthegarge (Feb 23, 2010)

Diogenes, it is easy to authenticate the Bible. You just need to Google "The Bible ". You will find reams of documentation from the last 2000 years. I know you like your " Gumby Version " but it doesn't come up when I Google it.... Go figure..

Since you have few, if any, credible sources I won't waste any more time on your drivel..................RW


----------



## Inthegarge (Feb 23, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> His delivery is sometimes akin to a milk truck crashing into the store rather than the driver simply bringing the product in via handtruck.
> 
> But lots of historians and authorities on religious belief systems agree with him on many points.  And it is very worthwhile to investigate and address them.



WTM45, please cite your reference for "Lots of historians and authorities on religious belief systems agree with him on many points ". While Dio's posts ramble a lot they are only supported by the minority of writers on this subject.  Do a quick Google search and see how many pro Bible references you find compared to the anti Bible.

It's kinda like President Obama insisting he is correct in his Health Care plans because the "experts" agree. Unfortunately, the American people aren't quite that naive and don't consider his experts, experts at all. 

My .02 cents worth.....................RW


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> WTM45, please cite your reference for "Lots of historians and authorities on religious belief systems agree with him on many points ". While Dio's posts ramble a lot they are only supported by the minority of writers on this subject.  Do a quick Google search and see how many pro Bible references you find compared to the anti Bible.
> 
> It's kinda like President Obama insisting he is correct in his Health Care plans because the "experts" agree. Unfortunately, the American people aren't quite that naive and don't consider his experts, experts at all.
> 
> My .02 cents worth.....................RW



It's not so much the questioning of the EXISTANCE of religious documents themselves, the selection and rejection of those documents or the translation of the languages found in the documents as much as it is the authenication of "origins" and "divine inspiration" of the documents.

There is PLENTY to discuss regarding that.  The very existance of multiple religious writings, religious belief systems, religious leaders, educational institutions and the like will ensure such differences exist forever.

There is no 100% concensus among all mankind on any of it.  Not even within sects and denominations of the same religious belief system.  
So, mankind discusses its "holy books" ad nauseum.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> There is no 100% concensus among all mankind on any of it.



Just because you knew it was coming.....


If there WAS 100% concensus, Christ would not be still waiting to return. 


"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Oh, and BTW....yes, repentance is necessary.


----------

