1. i'm not aware of any documents which we KNOW existed but we have no copies of. perhaps that's true. as for the new testement...no other ancient document is even a close second to it in terms of the number or early dating of the copies we have. we have ENTIRE LETTERS that date to 100 years from the original. nothing else is even remotely close in terms of that kind of reliability. the average gap for other ancient manuscripts is close to 1000 years. in addition, we have those books/letters quoted among church fathers for generations thereafter. and even within the letters that "made the cut" of the Bible (like many of Paul's letters, for instance) there are creeds or verses which pre-date the writing and give great insight as to what the early church thought of Christ...of who they understood him to be. 2. Yes..the entire Old Testament predates Christ. But the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't that kind of text. The best analogy I can give is like my notes from Bible study. Imagine if in 3000 years, someone found my notes from a little Bible study I go to on Wed morning. Imagine too, that in order to make my notes, I copied the text of the scripture I was reading. You'd be able to tell what my thoughts were about stuff already written...and you'd be able to test whether or not the copies of the stuff I was reading matched the copies of what you understood that scripture to say then. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't, however, add any new text to scripture. It's more like scripture commentary. Make sense? It's fascinating stuff...and the group responsible for them is a fascinating group of believers who basically said, "enough with all this...we're gonna get away from civilization and live as we believe God wants us to." So they went into hiding along the coast in caves. 3. You're exactly right. That "kiss" can be translated different ways as well. And that's really the scripture that this whole mary magdalene theory leans on. We don't know if was her that was the object of the "kiss"...and we don't even know if it was a "kiss" in the way we would understand it to mean. But to interpret it that way, we have to throw out all the other context we have of who Jesus was from all the disciples who followed him closely. And we have to assume that all of the rest of the writers felt it competely unimportant to let people know that Jesus was married (which would have been no sin, as God called for man and woman to join together in union through Hebrew history)...or you have to assume some massive coverup/conspiracy.
I'm not sure I understand you. What's another way to translate the Bible? This quote isn't in the Bible. And frankly, it's reading into the text words that aren't even there. It's not looking at the Letter to the Galatians and saying, "I read this to mean X...you read this to mean Y." Christians have done that since the very beginning. It's why we have so many denominations of believers. It's why you have diverse ideas in the church about issues like you mention. There's certainly nothing new about that.
But the beauty of it is that many people don't know that this stuff isn't actually in the Bible. I'm speaking of the way it's presented - someone familiar in depth with the Bible will dismiss it. However, someone who's not as familiar with the religion will read it (I'm not speaking of any particular part, but the book as a whole) and see this as another, possibly valid in their mind, interpretation of the religion's history, based on the secrecy and questions regarding the Roman Church and a desire to believe something that fits what they'd like to believe.
Does the Bible condone slavery? In the 19th century, certain people interpreted the Bible as such. Here's an example of quotes I found on this subject: "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." -- Rev. Alexander Campbell "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." -- Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." -- Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA). "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." -- United States Senator James Henry Hammond
true. The only other Brown book I have read is Angels and Demons...which was very similar to the Da Vinci Code...in style and even sharing the main character. Are you familar with the other ones? Is this style of writing the same in all of them? Max, naw..say it aint so....people reading what they want to into a work of fiction and coming away with conspiracy theories? Who would thunk?
it does not. people read into the text whatever they wish...to justify whatever they want. as has been done with virtually every faith tradition on the planet. but it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine the context of Jesus Christ and see him ratifying slavery...or treating anyone as a second-class citizen. particularly when he reached out so strongly to those who were considered to be the dregs of society. the texts in the New Testament which people like those you mentioned above have misconstrued come from Paul's letters to the early churches. a couple of thoughts there...slavery was a different thing in those times than it was in pre-Civil War america. very different. the Jews, themselves, were conquered many times and taken into slavery. you also had the indentured servants who pledged themselves as slaves to creditors to pay off their debts. it was part of the social context. Paul told everyone to treat EVERYONE with respect...with humility...with submission...just as our model, Christ, did. so if you're a slave...treat your slaveowner with respect was his response. those who wanted to use it to justify slavery read more than is there. sadly. but again...take into account who Christ is...that Christians are to literally "follow" his example. that he was submissive to the point of giving his life on the cross. that he took beatings. that he was mistreated. and that he remained humble. that he treated women, lepers, children, and those deemed the most sinful in society with the utmost respect...and you have a hard time getting to the notion that Christ would condone or "pat on the back" the institution of slavery.
The New Testament started being assembled at the Counsel of Nicea in 325AD under the direction of Emperor Constantine with approximately 318 bishops. The main debate was deity status of Jesus. The counsel was split almost down the middle. In the end the counsel decided he was the son of god. Various writings were accepted others thrown out. This continued for 70 or so years. In Fact in 390 AD Galastria, Bishop of Galatia counted 156 different Christian cults. The Church in Rome began to get quite brutal in the repression on any group of Christians that were not following, the ever evolving, and acceptable doctrine. The Holy Trinity was later created to explain Jesus' Deity status, Satan was give a huge roll in the doctrine, much to the dismay of a lot of early Christians, women were given marginal rolls and the writings that fit this agreed upon doctrine were put in others left out or edited. You can say god influenced these men to get HIS word out if you like but most scholars would agree with the majority of the above paragraph. Some might argue wording or semantics but that's the jest.
Madmax has covered this. The writings included in the bible were heavily scrutinized. The 27 books of the New Testament have been agreed upon since the council of Nicea 325 AD. But of the early church leaders dating back to Polycarp who knew the Apostle John (about 90-100 AD) all of them agree in their own writings to the authenticity of those 27 books. Of the 300 church leaders at the council of Nicea all but 2 agreed to the complete authenticity of those 27 books. There are almost 30,000 ancient manuscripts scholars have for the bible. Most ancient documents (like the history of Rome) have about 20 copies to go by and they are viewed as authentic by scholars. That means that the bible has over a 1000 times as many validating manuscripts to use and compare for authenticity. Also like Madmax pointed out the ancient Roman manuscripts are dated close to 1000 yrs after the fact. Most bible manuscripts are dated between 100-300 years after the fact. This is astounding to scholars. Scholars to this date pour over these manuscripts to confirm the decision to authorize those 27 books. So basically the books in the New Testament have been held examined for centuries under continued scholarly scrutiny- comparing with 1000's of supporting manuscripts. To put it in perspective the strictest rules and muster were met for those 27 books. After all if you claim it is the words of God, don't make any concessions or compromises. Many manuscripts and books are left out because doubts are held, however small, to their authenticity or accuracy. Any missing books that are found would have to meet these same precise conditions, critique and scholarly testing before they would be considered on level with the bible.
the council of nicea didn't come up with the notion that Christ was "deity" or Son of God in the early church..it appears among the writings of the earliest church leaders, and appears in creeds cited within letters from Paul to early believers. Paul was a contemporary to Christ. his letters date very early on. here are two such creeds caught up in letters from Paul..one to the chuch in Corinth..the other to his partner in ministry, Timothy: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once . . . (1 Cor. 15:3-6a). And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16).
I saw on a reputable "history of the bible" tv show that there were many other different "messiahs" at the time of Jesus, many of them celebrated the Eucharist and performed miracles. But Jesus rose to the top of the heap and became what we know today. Anyone know anything about this?
The Da Vinci Code is total BS. I read it and thought it was very good and maybe even plausible. Then I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail which the Da Vinci Code is based on. After reading about 2/3 of the book I became very skeptical. They were tying together very thin threads. So I decided to do a google search on the Priory of Scion. And wouldn't you know, the first hit that comes up debunks the Priory of Scion. The organization was made up by a con man. http://priory-of-sion.com/ The stuff about Mary Magdaline carrying the bloodline of Christ if very very weak in Holy Blood Holy Grail. In fact they really don't prove anything. It is all assumptions. The Da Vinci Code is entertaining, but its pure fiction.
MadMax, You are correct that the counsel didn't come up with the "Son of God" idea. But that is what they agreed upon. Many bishops believed Jesus was just a prophet of god like many in the Old Testament. Others believed Jesus became Divine after his death; others believed that Jesus was God in the Flesh, and some that was the Son of God. The list probable goes on and on. I was stating what was agreed upon at the Counsel only.
I've read all four of them... Da Vinci Code is my favorite, but also was the first of the four. I liked Angels & Demons, but probably would have enjoyed it more had I read it first. The other two are Deception Point and Digital Fortress - they each have a completely different set of characters and are not religious in nature. However, they do follow the same general mix-of-fact-and-fiction stuff, and disturbingly, some of the same character patterns. If you read all four, you will notice a lot of similarities in the character relationships. I highly recommend Deception Point - it's fun, fast-paced, etc. If you really enjoy Dan Brown, Digital Fortress is pretty good, but its a bit technical in nature - it takes place in the NSA and deals with a lot of code-breaking and such. Not nearly as engrossing or as well written, in my opinion.
and it isnt supposed to be anything but fiction...you cant blame the book/author if some folks want to believe there is a conspiracy. some of the more cynical among us may point out that the guys of the Council were just ordinary men...and as such could have made mistakes in interpretation based on their own influences\prejudices and political pressures of the time not sayig that is a fact...but can you deny that there are plenty of folks that are more than willing to believe that about the Catholic church? edit: Major, duh...I forgot Digital Fortress...yeah, I have read that one and I agree that while it wasnt as well written as the other two...I did enjoy the technical aspects of it...he really seems to do alot fo research to try to make his books as realistic as possible will check out the other one tho..thanks
i hear ya. what ii'm saying is that as close as you could get to orthodox christianity at the time was what paul was preaching, along with peter. they were easily the most influential of the early Christians in the largest churches. when you read their letters you get a very clear picture of who they believed Jesus to be. i suppose i'm countering the notion that the guys at nicea just decided to come up with this idea at that point. i see that idea presented quite a bit...and it just doesn't match up, as best i can tell
Understand, but they weren't interpreting anything, they all were representing what each of their regions held to as far as the accurate and authentic manuscripts/books- one region of the church world may have held a book equal to say Matthew's Gospel that another region did not. What happened at that church council is that they agreed on those 27 books met every possible test as to authenticity and validity. It was a matter of the Gospel of Thomas vs. the Gospel of John, should they both stay or go or one stay and the other go. They didn't even reject all the books they just agreed that the 27 books in the current New Testament were definately the real deal. They did not all feel as strongly about all 27 but they all agreed that the most critical and confirming evidence was supportive of those texts, for example they used the writings of the earliest church fathers, comparative texts, quotations, the examination of manuscripts, the consistency and accuracy of the texts and the validity of the manuscript as just some of their criteria. All that happened at Nicea was that Constantine got all the regional church leaders to come up with a set of New Testament books that all agreed were beyond reproach.
I'm confused. This says the gospel of Thomas wasn't considered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel..._of_Thomas_and_the_canon_of_the_New_Testament The Gospel of Thomas and the canon of the New Testament The fact that the Gospel of Thomas does not seem to have been considered for the New Testament is considered by some as an indication of its being of a later date—had it actually been written by the apostle Thomas, they argue, it would have been at least seriously considered by those in the century immediately following Jesus' death. This opinion is more popular among Christians who accept a divinely-inspired New Testament canon as an article of their faith—especially those considering themselves fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. However, in the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no firmly established New Testament canon that was universally recognized. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397, nearly four centuries after the events they purport to relate. This was done under the command of emperor Constantine, when he convened the Council of Nicea. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James. It should be noted that information about the historical Jesus itself was not a singular criterion for inclusion into the New Testament Canon. The canonizers chose to include many books that contain neither much information about the historical Jesus nor teachings from the historical Jesus, such as the Epistles and the book of Revelation. The Gospel of Thomas may have failed to be included in the canon of the New Testament because: It was deemed heretical It was deemed inauthentic It was unknown to the Canonizers It was thought to be superseded by the narrative Gospels It belonged to a branch of Christianity outside the triumphant Athanasius circle. Its emphasis on individual spirituality apart from the Church was deemed anathemical to the interests of organized religion.
