Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
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?

[help3434]

.

You say that “Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.�

CORRECTION: I made no such statement. If you think otherwise kindly quote my statement verbatim with URL.

Notice that the OP ASKS "Did the Church of Rome select writings for the Bible?" That is a QUESTION, not a declaration.

It was a question, but the implication was that the answers is yes. Don't be disingenuous.

Somebody (some people) made decisions about which writings to include in the Bible.

WHO (what people / group / organization) made those decisions?

I don't know and the three quotes from acticles you posted said NOTHING about it, so your post was really bizarre.

Was the Church of Rome NOT involved in those decisions? Was the Roman Emperor NOT involved or influential?
Denying that the Church of Rome and Roman Emperors were not involved in selection of writings included in the Bible will require some fancy footwork.

Denying that they were NOT involved? Did you mean the double negative?

[Willum]

[Replying to help3434]

You complaints would be taken more seriously if you indicated that you had read any of the OP:
I was referring to Tetragrammatons posts, not my own.

I am sorry, but if you can't get the flow of the OP straight, it is pretty obvious that your objection is based on what you want to believe, rather than any facts.

"Lashing out," like that, with substance derived only from what you want to belief about a subject, rather than actually reading even the humble words in the OP, goes a long way to dismissing your credibility.

But thanks for playing. I don't suppose you are going to reconsider your stances on religion based on what's transpired? Quit a lot was telling, and quite a lot, were you really interested, is an easy google away.

But I am sure you are not going to go down the route of self-investigation, but prefer to ask us to do it (again), and then criticize the results.

Rather like Historia, dodging and weaving to score some point lost on the rest of us, for the purpose of saying "see you were wrong about one of the many definitions of the word "point," therefore everything you say is wrong."

But prove me wrong. Please.

[historia]

You misunderstood my assertion on purpose and even though I clarified it several times you keep going back to it instead, because you are in denial.

Let me say it again so we are clear:

"What I meant to say is that Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for other reasons which are apparent once one starts to see when they were persecuted and by who. "

You ignored this point completely on purpose, we call that a straw-man.

I'm not ignoring this point, my argument refutes this amended version of your position as well.

Christians died only if they went against the roman law, that is the harsh fact you cannot deny.

Or, more precisely, Christians only died at the hands of Roman officials if they went against the law. I have no reason to "deny" this as this "harsh fact" is consistent with what I have said above.

Now if there are parts of the theology which went against roman law and some Christians decided to act upon it, it does not mean that they were persecuted because they were Christians/non pagans but it means that they were persecuted because their version of Christianity was against roman law.

That means that it was either the very minority or the least favored by the empire and it did not survive through history, but the Christianity that we know today(the one I'm talking about) was never persecuted for their belief, since their belief conforms to roman law.

So Eusebius is lying and so is the church about Christianity being persecuted, it was their enemies that were persecuted, the ones with a different christian theology that were persecuted, probably because the church(of today) had a hand in it.

Let's review these assertions in the light of the evidence.

As we've seen already, Decius and Dioclecian put in place edicts (laws) that specifically required all inhabitants of the Empire to perform sacrifices to the emperor and/or the gods.

The Christianity that we know today -- orthodox Christianity -- doesn't believe that one should perform sacrifices to an emperor or the gods. So that means, according your logic, this "version of Christianity was against roman law," at least during the time these edicts were in effect.

Both the Jones documentary and the Wikipedia article cited above say orthodox Christians (and not just their "enemies") were persecuted under these edicts because their beliefs compelled them not to perform a sacrifice to the gods.

Richard Carrier says something similar. This is from Sense and Goodness Without God (2005), pg. 264:

[In ancient Rome] People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion.

Simply following a different religion was not a crime in and of itself in ancient Rome (as we've already established). But Christians, according to Carrier, were persecuted because of their beliefs -- in particular their rejection of the Roman gods.

Is Carrier wrong in saying Christians were persecuted for their beliefs? Is the Jones documentary and the Wikipedia article on the Diocletian Persecution, which say Christians were persecuted for refusing to sacrifice to the gods, wrong?

If not, then we have more than enough evidence to say Christians were persecuted because of their beliefs, and not simply for some ambiguous "political" reasons. If you disagree, please cite evidence and scholarship to support your arguments. Simply stating your opinion is not an argument.

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

Having read through your argument I find nothing to it but a single fallacy.
Romans were not doing anything illegal by failing to sacrifice to Rome's gods, so no Christians would be prosecuted for this.

Everything else you wrote is simply rhetoric, sand without lime, and my, why a lot of it!

I wonder, as I often do, what a deity supporting honesty thinks of such posts. Are they sins in the eyes of God?

I think they are, and if that is the case, how does that support God?
And also, if God both can't defend himself with the truth, and requires someone to defend him arguments of vacillation, definition, and logical foils, what kind of God is that?

It can only be a god made up of logic, rules and imprecision. To me this more describes the Devil, who is supposed to be smart, deceptive and use scripture for his own ends.

Odd that!

[help3434]

[Replying to help3434]

You complaints would be taken more seriously if you indicated that you had read any of the OP:

I did read the original post of the thread.

I was referring to Tetragrammatons posts, not my own.

My post was a reply to your response to historia. Why would you be refering to Tetragrammatons posts when you are talking to historia?

I am sorry, but if you can't get the flow of the OP straight, it is pretty obvious that your objection is based on what you want to believe, rather than any facts.

Flow of the OP? The OP is a 2 sentence post. Not much of a "flow" to keep straight. Do you know what the OP refers to on a message board?

"Lashing out," like that, with substance derived only from what you want to belief about a subject, rather than actually reading even the humble words in the OP, goes a long way to dismissing your credibility.

Lashing out? What I want to believe? What are you talking about?

But thanks for playing. I don't suppose you are going to reconsider your stances on religion based on what's transpired?

Why stance on religion? I didn't say anything about my stance on religion besides that I am a non-theist (which isn't actually a stance on religion, but a stance on theism). What is with these bizarre non sequesters in your post?

Quit a lot was telling, and quite a lot, were you really interested, is an easy google away.

WHAT is an easy google away? Are you always so vague in your communication? I was replying to your comments in this thread. I don't need to google what I can read right in front of me in the very thread.

But I am sure you are not going to go down the route of self-investigation, but prefer to ask us to do it (again), and then criticize the results.

Rather like Historia, dodging and weaving to score some point lost on the rest of us, for the purpose of saying "see you were wrong about one of the many definitions of the word "point," therefore everything you say is wrong."

?

But prove me wrong. Please.

You post is so strange and incoherent it is hard to even categorize it as right or wrong.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by help3434]

Does it occur to you, that by only picking apart my observation, you only proved my each and every point?
Why was I commenting on Tetra' posts, and not my own? because Histoira was making non-sequitur conclusions about them.
If you had read the posts, instead of making assumptions about the posts, you would have seen this.

Instead of making posts that attempt discredit your debating partners, you should be considerate of what they write.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 55 by help3434]

Does it occur to you, that by only picking apart my observation, you only proved my each and every point?

No, because your "points" make no sense.

Why was I commenting on Tetra' posts, and not my own? because Histoira was making non-sequitur conclusions about them.

What non-sequitur conclusions are you talking about? You still haven't answered that question.

If you had read the posts, instead of making assumptions about the posts, you would have seen this.

I have read every single post in this thread. Speaking of making assumptions...

Instead of making posts that attempt discredit your debating partners, you should be considerate of what they write.

Another vague and unsubstantiated accusation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 57 by help3434]

Well, the substantiated claim was the Roman Emperor, or by proxy, the people who obeyed the emperor's wishes selected writings for the Bible.

The only thing we have heard contrary are misdirections. Amazing how, when confronted with an unpleasant truth, these topics degenerate.

You and Historia have made unsubstantiated claims of defeating an argument, one that, is even obvious to the casual observer.

It is obvious by casual web search, there are many books of the Bible that didn't make the cut. Those were first "canonized" by Rome.

That anyone denies that is laughable, and I am laughing.

That anyone denies that Rome put what they wanted into it as well, is laughable.
If there is one thing Rome is known for, it is corruption. Ever since the rise of Julius Caesar.

Your premise so far has been, we should assume that what was written about talking donkeys, men raised from the dead, floods that never happened, and so on, is the more likely hypothesis, but that Rome would not select writings for its own purposes - is incredible.

And then you resort to picking apart your debating partners' sentences to justify, what? Denial?

Do you really believe that a resurrection is more likely - or that a made-up story about resurrection that also endorses, "Rending to Caesar..." and obeying government, is more likely?

(Why do I have a feeling you won't answer this core problem?)

[historia]

Having read through your argument I find nothing to it but a single fallacy.

Romans were not doing anything illegal by failing to sacrifice to Rome's gods, so no Christians would be prosecuted for this.

This has already been addressed above. I will repeat it here since I guess you missed it:

The Decian persecution resulted from an edict issued in 250 by the Emperor Decius ordering everyone in the Roman Empire to perform a sacrifice to the Roman gods and the well-being of the Emperor.

In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional Roman religious practices. Later edicts targeted the clergy and ordered all inhabitants to sacrifice to the Roman gods (a policy known as universal sacrifice).

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

How long did the edict last, how was it enforced, and what does that have to do with the OP, EXCEPT to re-enforce exactly what I was stating about using mis-direction, in this case using an irrelevant fact, such as: See I said the Sun is hot, the Sun is hot, therefore Rome didn't select writings for the Bible, or an ineffective law passed outside any of thescope of the conversation.

It's a typical ploy: Here let me remind you what we are talking about:

Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?

So if you wish to keep using irrelevant tangents to make your point about this subject, you obviously have no better arguments. The plain fact of the matter is, you did exactly what I said you would: Brought up the irrelevant edict that has nothing to do with the topic. So what? Many spurious and ineffective laws have been passed in history.

You ignored, as I said you would, this:

Do you really believe that a resurrection is more likely - or that a made-up [selected writings] story about resurrection that also endorses, "Rending to Caesar..." and obeying government, is more likely?

(Why do I have a feeling you won't answer this core problem?)

You continuing to use it as a rabbit hole states that is your best argument - aka, bubkis.