.
Did the Chruch of Rome select writings to be included in the Bible?
If so, might that indicate a bias toward writings that were acceptable to / in Rome and/or writings that were in accord with Roman practices and policies?
Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
theophile
- Guru
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 126 times
Re: Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
Yes to the first question (Nicean Councils did this, right?). No to the latter.
Not sure how influential Rome would have been at this time since it was largely disintegrating and I feel its "practices and policies" were more "cosmopolitan" than, say, strictly Roman (or in line with Roman traditions...). Rome was not a uniform culture I don't think at this time. But a diverse people made possible through migration under pax Romana not to mention barbarian invasion. It was essentially an emperor (or two) trying to hold together fairly disparate "provinces" utilizing this new religion to try and get a better hold and build some uniformity.
But I'm no historian.
Yes to the first question (Nicean Councils did this, right?). No to the latter.
Not sure how influential Rome would have been at this time since it was largely disintegrating and I feel its "practices and policies" were more "cosmopolitan" than, say, strictly Roman (or in line with Roman traditions...). Rome was not a uniform culture I don't think at this time. But a diverse people made possible through migration under pax Romana not to mention barbarian invasion. It was essentially an emperor (or two) trying to hold together fairly disparate "provinces" utilizing this new religion to try and get a better hold and build some uniformity.
But I'm no historian.
Re: Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Post #3[Replying to Zzyzx]
There does not appear to be any evidence that the church in Rome had any more influence over the creation of the Bible than any other part of the church at the time. The Christian cannon was not put together by councils. It was derived more or less organically over a roughly 150 year period through discussions with essentially all parts of the Christian world.
There does not appear to be any evidence that the church in Rome had any more influence over the creation of the Bible than any other part of the church at the time. The Christian cannon was not put together by councils. It was derived more or less organically over a roughly 150 year period through discussions with essentially all parts of the Christian world.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Re: Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Post #4This is not correct. The Bible was pretty well set before the first counsel at Nicaea. There was no discussion about what books should be in the Bible at the first or second counsels Nicaea.theophile wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
Yes to the first question (Nicean Councils did this, right?).
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #6
Quote your source, please...postroad wrote: But how can someone say that Rome had little influence on the Bible when the cannon was finalized at the demand of the Roman Emperor?
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #7
[Replying to post 6 by ttruscott] What? The fact that the Council of Nicaea was convened at the demand of Emperor Constantine is accepted historical fact.
Post #9
[Replying to post 8 by theophile]Hmmmm.. Yes it seems that orthodox belief was established as law at Nicaea. Yet somehow a set of of fifty copies of an officially sanctioned and paid for "Bible" came out of it and were distributed around the Empire.
-
Youkilledkenny
- Sage
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:51 am
Re: Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?
Post #10[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
I don't care much for church history in this regard simply because the church was (and is) only people, complete with failings and "sins", with claims of things grander. Said simpler, it is what it is today.
So who did (or didn't do) what is immaterial to me generally speaking.
That said, I find it almost totally unbelievable* that a reasonable person wouldn't think that societal norms at the time had an impact, be it good or bad, on what the bible included and/or what is "says". Even today people can't come to agreement on what certain aspects of it mean. Beyond that, the bible, the actual book itself, can't agree on certain parts of its own story.
Saying otherwise strikes me as a "pipe dream".
* I say this because I can't be 100% certain, but that .0000000000001% is the 'anything's possible'
I don't care much for church history in this regard simply because the church was (and is) only people, complete with failings and "sins", with claims of things grander. Said simpler, it is what it is today.
So who did (or didn't do) what is immaterial to me generally speaking.
That said, I find it almost totally unbelievable* that a reasonable person wouldn't think that societal norms at the time had an impact, be it good or bad, on what the bible included and/or what is "says". Even today people can't come to agreement on what certain aspects of it mean. Beyond that, the bible, the actual book itself, can't agree on certain parts of its own story.
Saying otherwise strikes me as a "pipe dream".
* I say this because I can't be 100% certain, but that .0000000000001% is the 'anything's possible'
