books of the bible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
hanes
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:58 pm

books of the bible

Post #1

Post by hanes »

why did christianity leave some books out of the bible? and on that who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

i just find it rather hypocritical to put some books in and some books out. it seems like they just put the books that made the religion sound all good.
The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may
have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute.
While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the
Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role
of women in the church.


i was just wondering why books like this werent added? a religion based on the bible should have all the points not just the ones that are fitting.

User avatar
scorpia
Sage
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:31 am

Post #61

Post by scorpia »

Nope. Doesn't seem so. Just a Christian myth based on an interpolation made to the text of Suetonius
And yet why don't I believe this?

Let's just do a google search on "Nero Christians", just a couple;

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_c ... citus.html
off topic
Sorry to say it, scorpia, but if you really got bashed for being Christian, it was obviously an incredible exception to the rule. I live in a country where only fifty years ago, people got shot in the head for refusing to kneel in front of an image of Virgin Mary. I don't know where you live, is it a country where Christians are a minority?
Funny, I guess I'd be one to get shot too......... :-k
(BTW I did not mean I was the one bashed)

And no, I don't think MY COUNTRY has Christians as a minority. (although I would add it's very multicultural). I think the school where I went had a majority of students who seemed to have some big problem with what I said I believed.

This is all very sad, and I don't deny that things like this happen. I could say that Catholicism is the main culprit, but then after the reformation, well......

In any case, even if it is a majority, the majority of the way people retaliate don't act much better. Yeah, there are some "fundies" as people put it, who don't treat others very well. I've known this for ages. But after years of hearing people rant on and on about them, I'm starting to see the same self-righteousness and intolerance as those "Christians", that that's all I see, the hatred against it. If there's going to be any serious debate about tolerance, it would be better if others didn't paint it all with the same brush.

All I want to say is, everything isn't black or white. Every group has it's prides and it's shames. Why not just accept that?
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.

Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #62

Post by micatala »

Quote Scorpia:
People are deluded into thinking all Christans are bloodthristy and oppressive. What about all the ones you meet on the street? That little old lady who goes to church? What about anabaptists? What about jehovah's witnesses, who refused to do so much as bear arms? They are obviously not going to hurt anyone. And if you're going to go on about how Chritians bully other or oppress people, well, I have seen less of that and more people doing such things to religious people, enough to make me sick

scrotum wrote:We are not talking about what people think about Christians, or how Christians even act in public areas, its their concern.

You may ofcourse talk about whatever you like, but this is not the topic, so i´ll try to direct you to what we where talking about.
Scorpia makes a fair point, I think. Christians are often mis-characterized as a group on the basis of the actions of a few, sometimes extreme, examples.

Scrotum also makes a good point in that this does seem to be a bit off topic. The thread is asking why some books are part of the Christian canon and others aren't.




scrotum wrote:But we are on the other hand speaking of the fact that the Christian religion demands ignorance from its followers. As well as condeming everyone that does not follow it (this is your own religion). Open the bible one of these days, you might be surprised.
I would also suggest that this is not on topic.

In addition, the first statement is simply untrue. The history of Christianity is incredibly vast, varied, and complex, but there are certainly multitudes of learned people among the ranks of Christians, both present and past. It seems to me you are criticizing your own strawman caricature of Christianity.

Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Martin Luther King Junior, the late Pope John Paul II, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, Jimmy Carter, James Maxwell, etc. etc. one could easily list hundreds or thousands of names of scientists, theologians, philosophers, political thinkers, etc. who are or were Christians.

We can certainly continue to argue about who is more oppressed or who did more oppressing over the centuries, but none of this is on topic. Please direct such discussions to another more appropriate thread or start a new one.

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

Post #63

Post by trencacloscas »

And yet why don't I believe this?
That's your problem. And you can google all you want, also. Hey, even better, you can even read serious books and research. But to rely on philology and history you have to start with dates. By the time of the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), no Christian could be in Rome identified by that name. The idea that a recently born religion immediately faced persecution from Rome is an utter nonsense, it is only in the last third of the 1st century CE, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus until it showed up in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century.
Sor Eucharist: I need to talk with you, Dr. House. Sister Augustine believes in things that aren’t real.
Dr. Gregory House: I thought that was a job requirement for you people.

(HOUSE MD. Season 1 Episode 5)

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

Post #64

Post by trencacloscas »

BTW I did not mean I was the one bashed
Sorry, but who the anecdote you referred belonged to then?
Every group has it's prides and it's shames. Why not just accept that?
Sure. But probably no other group bears the monstruous record that Christianity does.
Sor Eucharist: I need to talk with you, Dr. House. Sister Augustine believes in things that aren’t real.
Dr. Gregory House: I thought that was a job requirement for you people.

(HOUSE MD. Season 1 Episode 5)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20844
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Post #65

Post by otseng »

To add another moderating note. This thread is getting way off topic. We're not here to discuss everyone's opinions on Christianity in general, but specifically on what should be included in the Bible. If you want to express thoughts not related to a topic, please start another thread in the most appropriate subforum.

Also, let's not make arguments too personal and disrespectful of others. Thanks.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #66

Post by McCulloch »

In another thread,
Iasion wrote: ...
Of course you are right that Constantine played a very big part in bringing the Christians to a consensus.
Perhaps it is splitting hairs, but I see this urban myth about Nicea repeated often, and I just like to set this straight.
Cathar1950 wrote:So tell us who picked the cannon or did it drop out of the s[k]y?
It's quite a complex story, here is a useful page: http://www.ntcanon.org
In short, the canon developed over centuries, as various early writers and later councils made lists - various books dropping out, or in, at various times.
The early evidence consists of:
  • early Church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus the Blind)
  • early heretics and their followers (Marcion and Marcionites, Valentinus and the Valentinians)
  • lists of canonical books (Muratorian Canon, Athanasius' Festal Epistle)
  • a single manuscript collection (codex Sinaiticus)
  • series of manuscripts (Peshitta, Vulgate)
You can see the early details at the web site above.
The early writers give us clues about inclusion of individual books.
Then we have the Muratorian Canon from about 3rd C. maybe (not complete, but similar to ours.)
We also have famous early bibles such as the Constantine bibles (not quite like ours, but close) from about the 350s. You can buy a facsimile for only $6000, have a look at this little beauty : http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
The first council decision on a canon was Laodicea in 360, similar to ours.
The very first canon like ours was from Athanasius' letter in 367.
By late 4th century, several minor councils agrred on the modern canon - Council of Laodicea (c. 360), Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393).
The final, formal ecumenical council decision on the canon did not happen until a millenium later - Trent in 1545, (a prior identical canon in Florence 1441 was listed but not formally declared IIRC.)
Iasion
Thank you for that research information Iasion, I thought that this point is quite relevent to this thread and should be debated here.

The issue is that if the canon of the Bible is, in fact, God's word, then why did it take so long to determine? Is God such a bad communicator?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

Post #67

Post by trencacloscas »

Hi, Iasion, and welcome :)

Thanks for the useful link, though I kinda agree with Cathar here, it is incorrect to say that the Council of Nicaea sanctioned the canon, but given the influence of Constantine we would probably be splitting hairs indeed if we underestimate his role in determining the books. Constantine practically set Christianity out when he commissioned Eusebius, the notorious crook, to arrange a Bible for him.
The Bibles of Constantine
There is another piece of evidence that bears on the subject of the canon - even though we may not know how to interpret it. About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred Scriptures made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment. At the same time the emperor informed him, in a letter still preserved to us, that everything necessary for doing this was placed at his command, among other things two public carriages for conveying the completed manuscripts to the emperor for his personal inspection. According to Eusebius:

Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. (Vita Const. 4.36.37)

The exact meaning of the concluding words has been taken in a half dozen different senses. Two of the most popular are, that the pages had 'three or four columns of script', or that as the copies were completed, they were sent off for the emperor's inspection 'three or four at a time'. The astonishing thing is that Eusebius, who took care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of opinion in regard to certain books, has not one word to say regarding the choice he made on this important occasion. Of course, 50 magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a great influence on great influence on future copies, at least within the bounds of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and would help forward the process of arriving at a commonly accepted New Testament in the East.
The above was taken directly from your link.


Why four? Why not three? Why not five, ten or twenty? Four Gospels were chosen based exclusively on gross superstition taken from Irenaeus of Lyon, who wrote in "Adversus Haereses":

"The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these".

About the books themselves, they were chosen in the 3rd and 4th centuries by popular and political actions, not by a vote at a single or multiple meetings. Now try to measure Constantine's role, and the legend of the picking of the four makes perfect sense, were it true or pure imagination. Well... everything in Christianism is only imagination, anyway.
Sor Eucharist: I need to talk with you, Dr. House. Sister Augustine believes in things that aren’t real.
Dr. Gregory House: I thought that was a job requirement for you people.

(HOUSE MD. Season 1 Episode 5)

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #68

Post by Lotan »

trencacloscas wrote:Why four? Why not three? Why not five, ten or twenty? Four Gospels were chosen based exclusively on gross superstition taken from Irenaeus of Lyon, who wrote in "Adversus Haereses
Hi trencacloscas,
Are you sure that Irenaeus might not have just invented this apologetic to mask some other reason why only four gospels were chosen? It does sound rather contrived. There were plenty of gospels for him to choose from; maybe only four of them fit his view of orthodoxy.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

Post #69

Post by trencacloscas »

Er... I'm not sure about what you mean... I quoted his own words... :-s
Sor Eucharist: I need to talk with you, Dr. House. Sister Augustine believes in things that aren’t real.
Dr. Gregory House: I thought that was a job requirement for you people.

(HOUSE MD. Season 1 Episode 5)

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #70

Post by micatala »

While I could do without the disparaging comments regarding the Bible in the last couple of posts, I would certainly agree that the biases and viewpoints of those involved in the 'selection process' are open to question and debate.

For another (not online, I'm sorry) source, see "Misquoting Jesus" be Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman notes quite a few instances of 'textual variation' within the early manuscripts, very many of which would have been present before Eusebius began his task for the emperor.

Ehrman documents a number of cases of variation, and gives fairly compelling arguments that some of these must have been intentional, meant to promote a particular viewpoint, or to 'harmonize' discrepant passages between books. For example, the gospel of Mark speaks several times of Jesus being angry. One spot is in Mark 1:41 where Jesus is angry upon being asked to heal a leper. He is subsequently almost abusive to the leper. Matthew and Luke, who both used Mark as a source, leave out 'angry' and replace with 'compassionate'. In other places, they simply leave out Mark's references to Jesus' anger.

Now, while I agree that the Bible contains these evidences of human error, alteration, and even 'tampering,' I do not see that it logically follows that the Bible is of no value, nor even that it is not 'God-inspired.' To me, the contention that anything associated with God, even the Holy Scriptures, need to be perfect in every way in order to be authentic is a false canard. What we know about God comes to us through imperfect means. Even the Bible acknowledges this, I think.

Post Reply