Bible Facts and History

[Zzyzx]

.
A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era " many others were discarded or not included
2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors
3. No original bibles exist
4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century
5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist
6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people
7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors " their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record
10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable
11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described
12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources
13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers
14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers


Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Edit: Overlooked this. How long should it be before we would expect Mark not to use a phrase like 'this generation'? If this is the gospel which Papias referred to, it may have been written c64-65CE, which is getting late - but surely not too late. Or perhaps even 66-67CE (written or revised?), as word of the growing Jewish revolt reached the author's ears.

I overlooked this too.

In Mark 20, we see the story of the demon possessed man among the tombs. The demons say that their name is Legion; for we are many. Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country. Jesus sends the demons into a large herd of swine, two thousand who just happen to be grazing on the hillside. Like seeing a couple of thousand pigs is perfectly normal in a kosher neighborhood. The swine go mad and plunge down a steep slope into the sea.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NKJV

Where did this happen? Mark 5 tells us that Jesus and the Apostles crossed the Sea of Galilee and came to the country of the Gadarenes (Mark 5:1) (Some translations spell it Gerasenes.) Gadara is near the Sea of Galilee.

It was on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and must have been a locality where the steep edges of the Bashan plateau drop close upon the brink of the lake. This condition is fulfilled only by the district immediately South of Wady Semak, North of Qal at el-Chucn. Here the slopes descend swiftly almost into the sea, and animals, once started on the downward run, could not avoid plunging into the depths. Many ancient tombs are to be seen in the face of the hills.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/v ... mber=T3748

Here is a picture of the region discussed.

The Bashan is a plateau east of the Sea of Galilee is surrounded by higher hills (providing water) and so is fertile, and (at about 700m or 2,000 feet) has a mild climate, ideally suited to cattle rearing.
http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/places/bashan.htm

Legion? Swine? One of the symbols used by the Roman Tenth Legion (X Fretensis) was a boar. It seems to have been the symbol they used in Judaea and must have been intended to humiliate the Jewish population.
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html

Here is a coin with the boar symbol and X.


A Roman legion of demons begs not to be sent out of the country and instead is plunged into the sea to drown. A nice daydream for Jews of that period. But what has it to do with dating Mark?

X Fretensis was active in the Jewish War.

After the first year of war, X Fretensis and V Macedonica had their winter camp at Caesarea (67/68), and after the capture of Gamala, the Tenth moved to Scythopolis (modern Beth-Shean). In the summer of 68, X Fretensis was active in the valley of the river Jordan
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html

Scythopolis can be found at G7 on the map linked below. Gamala is at I5. Mark 5 tells us that Jesus and the Apostles crossed the Sea of Galilee and came to the country of the Gadarenes (Mark 5:1) (Some translations spell it Gesarenes.). Gadara can be found at H6. Caesarea is on the Mediterranean coast at C7.
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ ... polis.html

The siege of Gamala took place in 67 AD and involved units of X Fretensis. After fierce fighting the city was taken. Many of the inhabitants died trying to escape down a step slope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla

The connections between Mark 5 and the Tenth Legion and the siege of Gamala in 67 CE seem rather strong. If we continue the idea that Mark, apparently living in the Latin speaking western Empire, was recording what someone from Judaea told him, we must conclude that Mark wrote after 67 CE.

[ThatGirlAgain]

This is an addendum to my post above about mark 5 and the Tenth legion. I had intended to include this information but it got left out. As usual it is too late to edit.

A Roman legion had a nominal strength of 6000 men but was typically organized with about 5300.
http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php

Mark 5 refers to the mutiple demon named Legion as being 2000 in number. If he was referring to an actual Roman legion, why the difference? The reason can be found in the details of the history of X Ferentis. As I quoted above:

After the first year of war, X Fretensis and V Macedonica had their winter camp at Caesarea (67/68), and after the capture of Gamala, the Tenth moved to Scythopolis (modern Beth-Shean). In the summer of 68, X Fretensis was active in the valley of the river Jordan
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html

As I also said, the capture of Gamala took place in 67 CE. Yet the Tenth Legion was based on the coast until 68 CE. Did they not take part in the siege of Gamala? Indeed they did, but not the entire Legion.

Josephus also provides a detailed description of the Roman siege and conquest of Gamla in 67 AD by components of legions X Fretensis, XV Apollinaris and XV Macedonica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla#History

A component of a legion might very well be about 2000 men, especially if the components of the three legions named were to add up to one entire legion and so be commanded by a single imperator used to managing a unit of that size.

This would appear to further strengthen the connection between Mark 5 and actual history and therefore the idea that Mark was written after 67 CE.

[JehovahsWitness]

2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

I'm interested in the evidence for this point (please include names of "churchmen" and "Roman Emperors" and of course references to original texts and documents (dates included) upon which this conclusion is based.

Thanks
JW

[Zzyzx]

.

2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

I'm interested in the evidence for this point (please include names of "churchmen" and "Roman Emperors" and of course references to original texts and documents (dates included) upon which this conclusion is based.

JW,

Are you, as a religious person, NOT aware of bible history? Do you really depend upon a Non-Christian to supply you with answers to such questions??? (Or are you trying a little sharp shooting?) Either way, I am glad to provide information from readily available Internet sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day znik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[3][4]

Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[13] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[14] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[15] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[16] and Evagrius,[17] Hilary of Poitiers,[18] Jerome[19] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.
The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers"for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea"had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian; Nicholas of Myra; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[20] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd[citation needed]. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Abkhazia (located in the western part of South Caucasus outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Crdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[20] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[20]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[21] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.[20][22]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[11] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[23] He was present as an observer, and did not vote.

Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[11] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[11][24]

Manuscripts and canons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).

To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.

The books comprising the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament (the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint 47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BC to roughly the 5th century AD, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminster containing the modern 39 books , and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing ("May God make his face to shine upon you...").

According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[1] Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed] (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek NT verse-by-verse " namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland " only 62.9% of verses are variant free.[2]

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[3] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[4] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[5] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[4] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[6] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

ZZyzx's list is purportedly be information on aspects of the bible yet from what I can tell it all had to do with the new testament. Is there anything on his list which pertains to the Old Testament?

[Zzyzx]

.

ZZyzx's list is purportedly be information on aspects of the bible yet from what I can tell it all had to do with the new testament. Is there anything on his list which pertains to the Old Testament?

Are you not aware that the committees that produced what has become known as the "Christian bible(s)", INCLUDED the Jewish tests and called them "The Old Testament"?

That was perhaps necessary to graft the new Jesus character onto the Jewish "god" character (via the "trinity" -- three gods in one concept"). That was solidified by the committees acting under the auspicious (and enforcement) of Roman emperors.

[ThatGirlAgain]

.

2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

I'm interested in the evidence for this point (please include names of "churchmen" and "Roman Emperors" and of course references to original texts and documents (dates included) upon which this conclusion is based.

JW,

Are you, as a religious person, NOT aware of bible history? Do you really depend upon a Non-Christian to supply you with answers to such questions??? (Or are you trying a little sharp shooting?) Either way, I am glad to provide information from readily available Internet sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day znik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[3][4]

Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[13] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[14] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[15] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[16] and Evagrius,[17] Hilary of Poitiers,[18] Jerome[19] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.
The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers"for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea"had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian; Nicholas of Myra; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[20] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd[citation needed]. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Abkhazia (located in the western part of South Caucasus outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Crdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[20] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[20]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[21] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.[20][22]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[11] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[23] He was present as an observer, and did not vote.

Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[11] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[11][24]

Manuscripts and canons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).

To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.

The books comprising the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament (the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint 47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BC to roughly the 5th century AD, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminster containing the modern 39 books , and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing ("May God make his face to shine upon you...").

According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[1] Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed] (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek NT verse-by-verse " namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland " only 62.9% of verses are variant free.[2]

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[3] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[4] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[5] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[4] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[6] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.

Where is the part about the Bible being put together by "churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors"? What was put together under direction of Roman Emperors was the several Creeds, not the Bible. Which Creed was to be followed as a symbol of a united church was much more important than the exact makeup of the Bible, which the Catholic Church did not get around to officially stating until the 16th century, and then only because Luther published his own version.

Here are two excellent books about the tumultuous 4th century and how the several Creeds came about, and other things of interest..

[JehovahsWitness]

2. Collecting [of bible books] and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

FIRST CUT AND PASTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day znik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father;

COMMENT #1: Was there a part of "collecting the bible that you are having problems with? Your first quote makes mention of the "collection" of the bible, which was my question. Discussion and establishement of an official church theology is not what your #2 claimed and not what I am addressing.


SECOND CUT AND PASTE

Manuscripts and canons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years.

COMMENT #2: I was not asking about textual integrity nor the difficulties presented therein, I was requesting your proof for the claim that early churchmen collected the bible under teh direction of "emperors". Your second cut and paste wiki contribution is therefore, for the most part, irrelavant.


SECOND WIKI CUT AND PASTE (Part (b))

Manuscripts and canons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[3] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed.

COMMENT #3 While Irenaeus' writing are relevant to the question I see no evidence that HE collected the bible, only that his catalogue was one of the earlierst we have at present. There is no evidence presented he was 'working under the direction of an emperer' or that, as an individual he had made the a ultimate decision to limit the gospels to four. To say (assert) or state something is not necessarily synonomous with causation.

If you contest these statements simply provide me with your EVIDENCE.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[4] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[5] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[4] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[6] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.

COMMENT #4 The fact that later church councils/bishops accepted already established canon no more establishes that those individual church fathers can be credited with COLLECTING or compiling those book than someone who admires and declares the empire state building to be the most beautiful building in New York can be credited with shipping it there from France. If anything this copy/past establishes that the bible cannot was well established by the third century. The second part of your second "copy/paste" was interesting but in no way addressed the claims you made.


I will repost what you said and give you theo opportunity to try again because I am genuinely interested in the topic.

"... the bible ...is an edited collection of writings [the] (#2) Collecting [...] was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

Sincerely
JW

[SailingCyclops]

If everyone knew what the churches have to lose,
they'd convert to Messianic Non-trinity Jews

Why? Why wouldn't they reject the entire philosophy and become atheist? After all, if the very foundation of their belief system is false, why would they simply modify their positions and not reject them altogether?

Bob

[Flail]

.
A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era " many others were discarded or not included
2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors
3. No original bibles exist
4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century
5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist
6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people
7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors " their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record
10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable
11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described
12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources
13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers
14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers


Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

As is so often the case, you have hit on yet another key factor of indoctrinated Christianity. As a lifelong resident of the Bible belt, I am constantly reminded in conversation with Christians about how little they know of the points about the Bible raised in the OP. They are often adept at Bible quoting and can take even the most mundane Biblical account out of context to make it into something else. But when it comes to these facts, they seem unaware. Of course their indoctrination makes them now unwilling to consider such things and they usually just walk away shaking their head...or they get angry.

So in answer to the OP questions I would say:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4 Hopefully
5, Hopefully not...hopefully you wouldn't consider the bible as anything other than myth or fable or allegory with lessons and morals and Commandments that we could have come up with on our own...and in fact we did.