Originally posted by Nellinator
They didn't trim it down. Those other books were never in the Bible ever. And they simply confirmed something along the lines of "no those books are stupid and were written well after the time of Jesus and contain some pretty wrong things in them."
Can you show documented proof of that? I would like to read about how they put the bible together. I saw a show on the History channel and it supported how Alliance characterized it, and contradicted you.
Originally posted by Nellinator
They didn't trim it down. Those other books were never in the Bible ever. And they simply confirmed something along the lines of "no those books are stupid and were written well after the time of Jesus and contain some pretty wrong things in them."
Oh come on. Jesus didn't put together the Bible and say: here is a bible.
Books have been removed from ancient bibles and there were many more books written that were not included.
They didn't trim it down. Those other books were never in the Bible ever. And they simply confirmed something along the lines of "no those books are stupid and were written well after the time of Jesus and contain some pretty wrong things in them."wrong to those who want jesus to be divine, but it is still the fact that gospels exist that looks on jesus as nothing more than a man with a message.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThey didn't remove anything. The first canon was created at the first council of Nicea. After that there were two more councils that added a few more. Nothing was ever removed to the best of my knowledge.
Can you show documented proof of that? I would like to read about how they put the bible together. I saw a show on the History channel and it supported how Alliance characterized it, and contradicted you.
Originally posted by AllianceYou're right. The church defined the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I can't think of any books being removed. There were many not included though, but they were never included.
Oh come on. Jesus didn't put together the Bible and say: here is a bible.
Books have been removed from ancient bibles and there were many more books written that were not included.
Originally posted by anacondaExcept that Christians never actually used those Gospels. Which church fathers quoted from them? Which church fathers considered them canon? None. However we know that as early as 180AD there was a support for the four fold gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The only books quoted by the church fathers that did not make canon were the Shepherd of Hermas and Jubilees. Neither is considered heretical, they are simply non-canonical.
wrong to those who want jesus to be divine, but it is still the fact that gospels exist that looks on jesus as nothing more than a man with a message.
Originally posted by Nellinator
They didn't remove anything. The first canon was created at the first council of Nicea. After that there were two more councils that added a few more. Nothing was ever removed to the best of my knowledge...
I'm not talking about books being removed; I'm talking about books not being added or being added to the list of books submitted for canonization for political reasons. For example; the book of Revelations was heatedly debated. Many members of the council of Nicea did not want to include it, but because it was a popular book and it made a good ending to the bible, it was added. This is according to the show on the History channel, I saw.
Eschatology going at the end makes a lot of sense imo. I can see why it was heatedly debated. The book itself tells us not to try and interpret it overmuch because it is so hard to understand. However, it is important to note that 90% of the rejected gospels and books were rejected rather steadfastly from the time of their conception.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Eschatology going at the end makes a lot of sense imo. I can see why it was heatedly debated. The book itself tells us not to try and interpret it overmuch because it is so hard to understand. However, it is important to note that 90% of the rejected gospels and books were rejected rather steadfastly from the time of their conception.
Your last sentence does not make sense to me.
There was a very large group of people in the church called the Gnostic's, and they felt that their beliefs and books where valid. Because their beliefs where considered harries by the Romans who where in control of the council and the church, they were wiped out (killed), and not included.
Except that Christians never actually used those Gospels. Which church fathers quoted from them? Which church fathers considered them canon? None. However we know that as early as 180AD there was a support for the four fold gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The only books quoted by the church fathers that did not make canon were the Shepherd of Hermas and Jubilees. Neither is considered heretical, they are simply non-canonicalmostly cause they were seen as heretic writings, they went against what was "deceided" to be the real true gospels.
Originally posted by anaconda
mostly cause they were seen as heretic writings, they went against what was "deceided" to be the real true gospels.
Since it was deceided on that this jesus charachteer was to be a divine one, of course writings claiming jesus was nothing more than an oridnary man, flesh and blood mortal as the next man was banned.
It was a common Roman practice to make their Empires divine. So, when the Romans took over the Christian religion, they made Jesus divine, and destroyed any thing that countered this belief. Fortunately for us, some of the Gnostic hid there books before they got killed.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThe Gnostics were not killed off until much later than when the canon was well decided. By 180 AD it is clear which were going to be accepted and which were not. At that time the Christians had no power to kill and destroy the Gnostics.
Your last sentence does not make sense to me.There was a very large group of people in the church called the Gnostic's, and they felt that their beliefs and books where valid. Because their beliefs where considered harries by the Romans who where in control of the council and the church, they were wiped out (killed), and not included.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonJesus was considered divine well before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Even the Gnostics believed Jesus was divine.
It was a common Roman practice to make their Empires divine. So, when the Romans took over the Christian religion, they made Jesus divine, and destroyed any thing that countered this belief. Fortunately for us, some of the Gnostic hid there books before they got killed.
Originally posted by Nellinator
The Gnostics were not killed off until much later than when the canon was well decided. By 180 AD it is clear which were going to be accepted and which were not. At that time the Christians had no power to kill and destroy the Gnostics.
Jesus was considered divine well before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Even the Gnostics believed Jesus was divine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The Council of Nicea is when the bible was canonized (325 AD). Before that there was no set bible.
BTW I know that wikipedia is not always a good souse, but it was convent.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I know all about the council. I never said there was a Bible beforehand. I said it was obvious what conclusion the councils would make by 180AD...
Not according to the program I saw of the History channel. That is my only source of information on this topic. That is why I asked if you could support your claim with documentation.
Originally posted by Melcórë
It seems we will not be able to agree, SpearofDestiny. 😛Your arguments do not make sense to me. How can God be limited in any way (save perhaps by self-limitation) if It created the universe? Even if It created the unverse and made it limited, this does not necessarily equate that God Itself is limited, IMMO.
Like I said above, I'm an SOB, so don't take too much stock in my opinion. 😛
BTW: The so-called "Void"? But is that not explained in the Scripture: The Void was beside the universe until God fashioned said universe....I've always believed that the "Void," if it exists, would be representative of "Sheol."
1) If the Universe is limitted, then so can its creator be. If the Universe is infinite, then the creator is infinite as well.
2) The Void would be the space that our universe does not occupy. I don't know the Bible's intepretation of the Void, however.
The Bible doesn't specifically say that God created the Universe. It says he created the Earth and the heavens (at this time the sky), the sun, and stars.
There is no mention of a galaxy, or blackhole, or any of the anomalies we now see in space. The description of Genises is simply intepretted as the entire universe.
What if the Universe had many Gods, each responsible for creating a different aspect ?