Correcting Misguided Conceptions and Proving the Bibles Authenticity

I'm pretty sure that no one is going around saying that Homer's Odyssey is fact or that we should start worshiping Zeus and Poseidon. Your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by modeerftahw
I believe in God and Jesus, but I would never call myself a christian. There are plenty of honest God-fearing people who sincerely seek the truth an will not settle for man's traditions and religious catch phrases. Todays church leaders and majority of church attenders are no better than politicians. They do not follow any of the teachings that Christ taught. Because of self righteous, superior attitudes the church unknowingly supports genocide, sanctions, slavery, greed and is severely brainwashed. The teachings of Christ that the "church" ignores and even goes against:
Live by the sword, die by the sword
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord
Turn the other cheek
Love thy neighbor
Greater love hath no man then to lay down his life for a friend
Wealthy people must sell belongings they dont need and share with the poor

Church teaching
Slaughter the enemy
Respect and support corrupt military/govt
Love only those you choose, unless its in public
Make as much money for as litte as possible
Look down your noses at anyone who is homeless, addicted, on welfare extc

You can't label every church in one category. A lot of denominations of Christian churches came together by just a few people worshipping. Eventually when it grows so big there needs to be a building.
Without these churches there would be many who have not heard the word yet. Because we don't hear about the good work churches do it doesn't mean everything they do is bad. Christians are told not to follow the world but to follow Christ. A Christian needs to fellowship with others.

Matthew 18:20 - For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

And also *ahem* the Bible isn't the entirety of all the writings about Jesus. There's whole libraries of s*** that didn't make it into the Bible. If you take a look at every historical writing about Jesus instead of just what's in the Bible then his story isn't very consistent.

Originally posted by Nosred
I'm pretty sure that no one is going around saying that Homer's Odyssey is fact or that we should start worshiping Zeus and Poseidon. Your argument is invalid.

Wow, dude. I was comparing the literature's written authenticity with that of Scripture. I never claimed it was based off real events. Your post is invalid.

And also *ahem* the Bible isn't the entirety of all the writings about Jesus. There's whole libraries of s*** that didn't make it into the Bible. If you take a look at every historical writing about Jesus instead of just what's in the Bible then his story isn't very consistent.

Where are these libraries you speak of? I already listed several Pagan references, such as Greek historians who account for Jesus' existence and who He was. Oh yeah, and they are all consistent.

Originally posted by DanteMustDie
Wow, dude. I was comparing the literature's written authenticity with that of Scripture. I never claimed it was based off real events. Your post is invalid.

Then what makes you think the Bible is based off real events?

Where are these libraries you speak of? I already listed several Pagan references, such as Greek historians who account for Jesus' existence and who He was. Oh yeah, and they are all consistent.

edit on 29-9-2011 by DanteMustDie because: (no reason given)

Stuff like:

The Gospel of Thomas
en.wikipedia.org...

The Book of Judith
en.wikipedia.org...

Gospel of Judas
en.wikipedia.org...

Gospel of Mary
en.wikipedia.org...

Gospel of Peter
en.wikipedia.org...



Etc., etc., etc.

You can find hundreds of books about Jesus that weren't included in the Bible for whatever reason (read: didn't suit the Romans' agenda).

reply to post by DarkKnight76

that spoke out against the romans.

HUH? Seven times Pilate declares Him innocent.

If Jesus the Anointed lived Wow what then do I do with that? That all these Bible Stories are true That know other human has affected so much change as he.Claiming to overcome all things and becomes One with GOD and telling us he whats us to do the same and greater works we will do wow what a quest and if you overcome as he you shall sit with him in heaven and inherit all things.And the Great marriage takes place because when someone overcomes all fallen nature and this world you will be the bride and all things would be completed done but this would be the new beginning.Wow what a challenge

reply to post by mikeprodigy
I would recommend skipping all the bride stuff which comes from Revelation and is seriously misinterpreted.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Thanks for your opinion , just wondering who are all the people invited to the wedding feast are they the bride also?
Thanks again for your comment.The marriage interests me could it be becoming one the great mystery.

Originally posted by mikeprodigy
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Thanks for your opinion , just wondering who are all the people invited to the wedding feast are they the bride also?
Thanks again for your comment.The marriage interests me could it be becoming one the great mystery.

I am having a bit of a problem with your sentence structure. Let me try to interpret it:
"This is interesting. I wonder if we are supposed to become the bride. Or is this just one of those things people are always going to wonder about?"
Did I get that right?
Answer:
OK. No. It will if you don't change the way you read Revelation.
To explain my answers a tiny bit:
Revelation is not what you think it is.
You are not the "Bride", nor is anyone else. It is a form of existence.
The "Lamb" is a host of saints, as in who the Son of Man in Daniel meets with, to give them his power. So Jesus, once this transfer takes place, is one, indistinguishable from the others, of this crowd of martyrs.
The invitees are everyone. Not all are deemed worthy though to join, mainly by being the very people who caused the saints to be martyrs in the first place.

Originally posted by mikeprodigy
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Thanks for your opinion , just wondering who are all the people invited to the wedding feast are they the bride also?
Thanks again for your comment.The marriage interests me could it be becoming one the great mystery.

What's it mean to say the church is the bride of Christ?

reply to post by SrWingCommander


You wrote:

["It has been demonstrated that the book itself is a valid writing and modern copies are accurate.. You may debate the book's claims or beleive the contents to be a fairy tale."]

Correct.

Quote: ["But many of the opposition want to go back and claim the book wasn't even written...or written/copied incorrectly, altered, etc."]

Which isn't my point.

Quote: ["You continue to argue the first point, which in academia is pretty much settled."]

Where did I do that?. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

Quote: ["The OP was essentially posting that the Book itself insofar as the writtings are correct"]

You mean such as....quote from OP: ["These people have made it blatantly evident just how much they despise the Bible, the concept of the Creator, and all who follow in the teachings of Scripture."]

Quote: ["You may not beleive the claims, but lets stop being intellectually dishonest by saying the book was tampered with, and the person didn't exist; this is the OP point."]

I always recommend intellectual honesty, so read the OP with that in mind.

reply to post by Dezero


You wrote:

["Where did you get the idea that diversity is a sign of the devil?
I was merely pointing out that the devil attempts to divide people by deception of their own beliefs. A lot of Christians are blocked from seeing truth purely by their inability to be honest with themselves."]

Thanks for narrowing and clarifying your original statement to that 33.399 versions of christianity are 'blocked'. I take it, that you are not not 'blocked', but a 'true christian'.

Quote: ["Most people who have a dislike of something will take the first negative thing they see regarding this subject and lap it up without investigating fully."]

What qualifies as 'fully'? Eventually agreeing with someone like you..... or say 45 years of studying existential questions.

Quote: ["Your hatred towards Christianity or organized religion is what is actually blocking you from discovering the truth........"]

Character-analyses of this kind are irrelevant and anyway the argument is circular.

Quote continued: [".........Did you ever think of that?"]

Why is that important, considering that my basis for thinking is rational reasoning without rhetorical questions. Which should be enough.

Quote: ["My cousin recently told me he doesn't believe in God. He read The God delusion and now he's a converted atheist. I asked him if he investigated Christianity read the bible or prayed for direction before he came to his conclusion, he said no."]

I'm not your cousin.

Quote: ["And there we have it, he didn't want to believe in the first place."]

You mean, there YOU have it, based on your one-person poll.

Quote: ["He lives his life of self indulgence and he doesn't want God to intrude on his enjoyment."]

Not agreeing with you can be defined as 'self-indulgence'? How peculiar.

Quote: ["It is really simple when you look at it.
The truth is always simple, that is why atheists usually have above average intelligence, because the theory is too complex for the simple mind"]

Rest assured. Intelligence is a satanic (or more precisely: Luciferian) plot. And that explains everything circularly once more.

reply to post by DanteMustDie


You wrote:

["That is all myth. There is no documentation whatsoever proving this allegation. There are many primary materials left from the Council Nicea, none of which states them even addressing the books of the Bible, much less discarding them."]

As opposed to the bible, which ISN'T myth?

Besides your historical information is incorrect. Considering the roman obsession with protocol, the Nicea minutia are small.

PS Why do you include an unspecified quote from me in a post addressed to ZIPMATT?

Originally posted by Nosred
I'm pretty sure that no one is going around saying that Homer's Odyssey is fact or that we should start worshiping Zeus and Poseidon. Your argument is invalid.

Some people aren't hindered by such details as (lack of) standard logic, so you may be wrong.

I mean take me. I'm a secular pastafarian and my doctrines are as 'historically validated' as anyone can wish for....fresh out of the press.

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
I don't doubt he existed, but I think his story was embellished just a little bit. I mean if you are a repressed jew living under the roman boot heel, would you rather follow the son of God, or just some crazy carpenter that spoke out against the romans. As for the bible, the fact that the council of Nicaea picked and chose which books they would follow and which would be burned, tells me there is nothing authentic about it. If it was organically culled together from the texts it would be a different story, but it wasn't. Christianity post council of Nicaea was Rome's attempt to keep the power of their empire intact, and it worked out pretty well for them I would say. If you really wanted to prove the bible's authenticity you would have gotten God's original shorthand manuscript.

Interesting you would say God's original manuscript then say the Nicean Council picked the books and then not even consider the Dead Sea scrolls, which ALL archeologists agree that the Book of Isaiah is the exact same in the Dead Sea scrolls as it is in the Old Testament. Word for word.

So what you are saying is this, the Dead Sea scrolls which have a scroll that is the Book of Isaiah is mere coincidence? Word for word coincidence?

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
I don't doubt he existed, but I think his story was embellished just a little bit. I mean if you are a repressed jew living under the roman boot heel, would you rather follow the son of God, or just some crazy carpenter that spoke out against the romans. As for the bible, the fact that the council of Nicaea picked and chose which books they would follow and which would be burned, tells me there is nothing authentic about it. If it was organically culled together from the texts it would be a different story, but it wasn't. Christianity post council of Nicaea was Rome's attempt to keep the power of their empire intact, and it worked out pretty well for them I would say. If you really wanted to prove the bible's authenticity you would have gotten God's original shorthand manuscript.

Interesting you would say God's original manuscript then say the Nicean Council picked the books and then not even consider the Dead Sea scrolls, which ALL archeologists agree that the Book of Isaiah is the exact same in the Dead Sea scrolls as it is in the Old Testament. Word for word.

So what you are saying is this, the Dead Sea scrolls which have a scroll that is the Book of Isaiah is mere coincidence? Word for word coincidence?

Some people believe only what they want to believe.

Nicea Myths and Fables

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
I don't doubt he existed, but I think his story was embellished just a little bit. I mean if you are a repressed jew living under the roman boot heel, would you rather follow the son of God, or just some crazy carpenter that spoke out against the romans. As for the bible, the fact that the council of Nicaea picked and chose which books they would follow and which would be burned, tells me there is nothing authentic about it. If it was organically culled together from the texts it would be a different story, but it wasn't. Christianity post council of Nicaea was Rome's attempt to keep the power of their empire intact, and it worked out pretty well for them I would say. If you really wanted to prove the bible's authenticity you would have gotten God's original shorthand manuscript.

Interesting you would say God's original manuscript then say the Nicean Council picked the books and then not even consider the Dead Sea scrolls, which ALL archeologists agree that the Book of Isaiah is the exact same in the Dead Sea scrolls as it is in the Old Testament. Word for word.

So what you are saying is this, the Dead Sea scrolls which have a scroll that is the Book of Isaiah is mere coincidence? Word for word coincidence?

Some people believe only what they want to believe.

Nicea Myths and Fables

I agree Noturtypical. It seems they want to reinforce Dan Brown's theories.It is his theories they keep postulating,whether they realize it or not.

There is nothing new under the sun, as the Bible says.

reply to post by Nosred

The Gnostic Gospels were discovered in 1945, Upper Egypt near the town of Nag Hammadi. There are only 52 copies in 13 leather-bound papyrus codices as opposed to the 5,800 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the 25,000 copies in various languages. There are few Gnostic scholars who would claim the discovered writings prove more authentic than the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament.

As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christian­ity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. Perhaps they did it to keep recruitment numbers up and make Jesus a poster child for their cause. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be rein­vented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity. In The Oxford History of Christianity, John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs:

"Gnosticism was (and still is) a theoso­phy with many ingredients. Occult­ism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology, magic. ...They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity."

A mild strain of Gnostic philosophy was already growing in the first century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

The apostle John wrote near the end of the first century:

"Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are Antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years BEFORE the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that the Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.”

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early third century, more than a hun­dred years before Nicaea:

I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be consid­ered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these.

ERWIN W. LUTZER Senior Pastor of the Moody Church wrote:

"First, the Judas document was known by the early apologist Irenaeus who wrote against the foolish ideas of the Gnostics in AD 180—so its discovery some years ago really does not shed much more additional light on it. Second, all scholars agree that it was written about a hundred years after the time of Jesus, so obviously it is a fictitious account of the Judas story. Third, it was written by Gnostics who rebelled against the Old Testament God and adopted any person who stood against God as their hero: some considered themselves followers of the serpent who brought enlightenment to the woman, others called themselves Cainites because they extolled Cain, the first murderer, and others even admired the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now let me ask: is it any wonder that such people would take Judas, the villain of the New Testament, and turn him into a hero?"

As for The Jesus Papers, it is a bizarre fictional account about Jesus surviving the crucifixion and spending the rest of his life in Egypt! Although the author has no basis for his views beyond a fertile imagination, the book is being passed off as plausible history. A shining example of the extent to which people are willing to fabricate history in a vain attempt to debunk the New Testament accounts.

To make a very long story short: We have a rope (not a thread but a rope) that extends from the Council of Nicaea all the way back to Jesus and you can pull on that rope and it will not break because it is corroborated with so many strands. In contrast, the Gnostic Gospels have nothing that compares to the New Testament. Wikipedia is not a completely trustworthy source of information. Nor is it a library.

As opposed to the bible, which ISN'T myth?

bogomil:
There is a law of authenticity stating: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and develops on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

Therefore, the challenge is yours to prove to me that the Bible is myth

reply to post by DanteMustDie

There are many primary materials left from the Council Nicea, none of which states them even addressing the books of the Bible, much less discarding them. There were 20 canons passed by the Council of Nicea, and none mentioned the books. There's a letter from Eusebius back to his church at Caesarea, preserved in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition, letters from Constantine and the council passing on it's decisions to the churches, and even a description of the proceedings in the writings of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea. To suggest the books were discarded or altered is historically inaccurate.

I have the first two volumes of, A History of the Christian Councils, that I bought 25 years ago. The sub-title says, From the Original Documents. This was by Hefele, Doctor of Divinity, published, 1894.
I just did a search on Internet Archive, and you can read at least the first volume, which covers the Council of Nicaea.
You can do the Read On-line version where you flip the pages, at:
History of the Council of Nicaea

You have to go to page 231 to get to the part we are interested in. That begins the discussion of the various views on trinity. To get to where it states something about the documents from the council, you have to go to page 262.
To get to the contents of the canons, you need to go to page 375.
On page 297, there is a section called, The Signatures. Looks like there was no know original copies of the documents from the Council of Nicaea after around 400 AD.