I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to make sense of this article so I thought it would be better to discuss over here rather than listen to the Middle Eastern Muslim world's conspiracy theories and such.. I tried to read into how today's Bible(s) was/were compiled, but I must admit that it was an overwhelming amount of information and confused me till I gave up. My general/dummy understanding is that there were a lot of texts written at the time of Jesus PBUH. Later on, his students who were with him all the time each wrote a book containing stories of Jesus PBUH. After they all died, these books and a whole lot of texts were found. There was a meeting (Council of Nicea?) to determine which ones are accurate, which ones make sense, etc etc.. So a Bible was created based on the decisions of this council/group. My personal questions: - Why are there four books but more disciples? Were the other books never found or were they not maintained or? - The council that compiled the Bible is the Council of Nicea and was brought together by Constantine? (I think this is correct) - What happened to the texts that didn't make it and do we know why they didn't? Now I can find this information online but the way in which it is written makes it confusing for me (non-Christian). I know there are tons of people on this board with a great depth of knowledge on the topic but I would really appreciate it if you could put it in simpler terms when discussing so that a wider audience (including myself) can really understand.
Can't wait to search through this!!! To answer a few of your questions... 1. not every disciple is credited with writing a document... 2. the decisions at Nicea were made largely to determine what was being used by most of the churches...they wanted some continuity. 3. it's pretty clear that the Gospels source one another...John being the youngest of those documents...but Mark is said to be a source for Matthew and Luke 4. a lot of the texts that were written that people discuss today were written 200-300 years after the events took place. others were only used by one church or another, so they weren't influential on the Church at large. what you won't get is something WHOLLY different. there is a school of thought that somehow the gnostic gospels, for instance, tell an entirely different story. they don't. they project a radical teacher who was crucified and resurrected. in the Gospel of Peter, the Cross talks....but many think that it was actually just the script for a play....because different churches were putting on passion plays quite frequently to tell the story, even early on. 5. there are quotes in Paul's letters to creeds which appear to predate Gospels. Paul's letters were written from about 25 years after the date of the resurrection. So Paul says in to the Church in Corinth: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to five hundered brothers and sisters all at one time." This appears to be a creed capturing a small statement of faith that was held by the early Church. Paul's conversion to Christianity came a few years after the resurrection....so he's harkening to a creed he "had received." And remembering that Paul had dealings with James (the brother of Jesus) and Peter (one of Jesus' disciples) gives you an indication that this would have been important to those who were following. Even most skeptics acknowledge this much when writing of the historical leanings of the early Church.
is it here?? http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ i'm not finding the english translation EDIT; wait...found it...they just didn't have an English translation up for the verses in Genesis it immediately goes to when you click the link
MadMax, Would love to hear your thoughts on it once you've had a glance at it!! Thanks for the explanations.. Some comments: 1) There is no way to definitively know if someone actually didn't HAVE a document though right? All we can determine is that one was never found, so either he didn't or its lost? 2) So at Nicea, they gathered the most "popular" stuff that the biggest and most significant churches were following? Was this restricted to scripture or did it include oral stories/theology? 3) What does that imply though? That they were writen around the same time? That they were in general agreement? 4) I got you here.. I'm curious about my second comment here.. I deal heavily with governance standards and I guess I'm wondering about who was chairing the council, who was attending, who was allowed/asked to attend, what criteria was used and how decisions were reached.. 5) I believe I've asked you questions around this before.. This piece seems to suggest that not everyone was agreement even those very close to Paul: I'm aware that this "Gospel of Barnabas" appeared too late and in too many forms and with too many contradictions to be taken seriously. I'm also sure that in a religion as widespread as Christianity, there will be minor logistical differences until a central and identical Bible is established. But is there a possibility (based on your knowledge/experience) that all the disciples didn't agree on teachings and events following the crucifixion? 6) Quick check: Disciple is everyone who was a student while Jesus PBUH was alive. Apostle is specifically those 12 disciples that Jesus PBUH "chose, named and trained.." according to Wiki. What I don't understand is how, later, the wiki page goes on to say that when Judas killed himself, Matthias became one of the Twelve. By who's authority was that done? Also, different sects are not in full agreement regarding who the 12 are? As always, I don't mean to offend and really do my best to make sure I don't say anything which would be offensive. My real interest at the moment is mending the relationship between Christians and Muslims by creating understanding. I really believe this kind of information goes a long way in debunking myths, traditions, and falsehoods that tend to float around in the Middle East. Wanna do my part!
Just want to say that I think this thread is great (the intention and the discourse). I'm going to try and stay out of it though, because I think Mathloom is looking for the christian perspective. Thanks for the discussion though, it's good reading.
I glanced at it some yesterday...hit my favorite passages to see if there was correlation...it was dead on. I've found very little difference so far from the Bible on my desk. I wonder what specifically they're claiming is different. 1. yes, that's true. but keep in mind, Paul refers to "scripture" long before the Bible is ever assembled. That there was a loose collection of books that was being shared amongst Churches is almost undeniable. What books those were specifically, I'm not sure...but I'd venture to say that we've LIKELY seen them. 2. The point of the Council was to get some sort of agreement or consensus as to the books they'd be using. Up to this point, many of the churches were meeting in houses and, until 70 AD, at the Temple. They discussed at length the nature of Jesus (is he eternal??)...and what that meant. And they also chose a date in the year to celebrate Easter (the Resurrection). There was well over 300 bishops in attendance from various churches. I'll say this...Christianity's theology has always been somewhat fluid. Very different from a religion where God appears and directs what to write down...the story of Christianity, as it is recorded, is a reaction to events. "This happened...holy crap, what does that mean??!!" We get that sort of reaction in the resurrection story from those who witnessed him....lots of confusion. I find that aspect makes the story more authentic to me. Much more real. Let me also say...from around 300 AD on, the Greco/Roman influence on Chrisitanity becomes HUGE. It likely is even before that...but certain concepts (particularly related to Heaven and Hell) and then the art that reflects the story takes on a hugely Roman appearance. I personally find myself going back to Judaism and the early Church when I try to get at this story. 3. Not sure what it implies...I do know that paper and ink weren't nearly as accessible then as they are now. 4. Hope I answered this in 2. 5. Paul and Peter weren't on agreement as to whether non-Jews could be part of Christianity...or if it was going to strictly be a Jewish sect. Then the questions were, "well, do we keep practicing Jewish law?? or are we freed from that?? -- and should Gentiles who come to faith through Jesus be subject to the Jewish laws as well?" Those were the issues of disagreement for Paul and Peter that I'm aware of from scripture. I'm certain there would be disagreement about theological and polity issues...I'm doubtful there was disagreement amongst those about what had happened. 6. Read Acts. I think you'll find it interesting. It's the story of the early church following the resurrection. You are in no way offensive. You're always extremely respectful, and I always appreciate that. Thanks for the discussion!
Thanks KC, this pic makes so many things make sense for me now. I always remember a lot of old Christians talking about a Raptor that would come and take them away before Armageddon hits. Never knew what they were talking about until now. Bless You.
Great answers, I'm seeing the picture far more clearly now. I would still love to get deeper into who the 300 bishops were and whether they were invited or whether it was an open invitation etc etc.. Although I'm sure 300 bishops at that time would constitute a huge sample size. I can see the Greco/Roman influence which came in later on. I don't think anyone can deny the political role that Christianity attained later on was strong. But on the brightside it seems even to me that the external influences and their effects can be easily identified (that's a good thing). Your 5th comment was very interesting to me. Why would they argue those things at all? I was under the assumption (perhaps false) that in Christianity Jesus PBUH is considered Jewish himself? I believe I've heard that on this board at some point. (Ok this part gets tricky so please excuse my rookie terminology!) Considering Paul and Peter's experience re Jesus PBUH, I would think that within half a second, without any debate whatsoever, that this would be the line of thinking: "Jesus PBUH is God. The Jewish Law is from God to Moses. Jesus PBUH said I will not (paraphrasing here) strike even one letter from The Law. Therefore, the Jewish Law applies to all current and future Christians." Regarding gentiles, I understand that there would be some confusion as there was lots of debate at the time regarding the 12 tribes and who were the chosen people and culture/ethnicity/politics played a large role too. (Quick question: Is there any way to accurately determine whether these "arguments" or discussions began before Paul's writings or during or both?) P.S. Will do (re reading Acts) P.P.S. I should be thanking you for the discussion, I seem to be drawing all the benefits from it!
Thanks and although I am looking for a Christian perspective, seeing it from different eyes never hurts, so please share your thoughts if you feel like it! Be aware that I'm a beginner though and give me some hints and warnings regarding whether you're sharing facts, opinions, majority opinion, a minority view, etc etc.. That kinda stuff helps me put it into perspective.
Make that winged creature in the photo a flying disc and you'd really have something to talk about...
Jesus was Jewish...but he blew the doors of conventional religious Jewish teaching. He threw out all sorts of ideas that were considered heretical....particularly talking about himself as a replacement for the Temple. Yikes. Yeah, Temple authorities weren't real thrilled with that. He hung out with all the wrong people in all the wrong places according to them. He "worked" on the Sabbath. He sat and spoke with the WOMAN at the well who also a SAMARITAN. Gasp!!! These were unclean sorts of things to do. The early Church was largely Jewish...but became convinced that Jesus' sacrifice had freed them from the law...that there was a new covenant now. That it went beyond just being Jewish if Jesus really was who he said he was. You'll get a lot of this in Acts...about dietary laws...about who would be welcome into the faith, etc. But I think you'd need to read through at least one of the Gospels to get an understanding for the influence of Jesus' action and words on why they arrived at those conclusions.
MadMax, I always appreciate the posts you and Rhester make in regards to religion. I've always wondered what denominations you guys are? Do you mind sharing that? I grew up in a fundementalists/speaking in tongues church but now a attend a Lutheran church. I find that the differences in bible history/theology are staggering among the adherents of two, However, I always seem to learn from you guys. Thanks.
Growing up as a child I attended Methodist and Lutheran churches During Jr and Sr High and College I considered myself atheist/deist/agnostic combined (go figure) Became a Christian in 1979 I did my bible college and my bible credentials with the Assembly of God denomination which is fundemental/speaking in tongues I never fit in some areas and left that in 1999 Last 10 years I have not had any connection to any denomination and I would characterize our church as small, simple, and mostly young people simple bible stuff, we emphasize being real, loving Jesus and loving others BTW- I love Lutherans especially the David and Goliath TV shows
Grew up in the Episcopal Church was influenced by para-church youth ministries was influenced by reformed theology was a member and elder of a Presbyterian Church visited a million different churches of all different flavors. best friends growing up were catholic, so went to mass with them quite a bit. went to Baylor...married a Baptist girl part of an inter-denominational church right now
At the time, remember that there was no separation of church and state; the church was the state. The political winds played a role in the final decisions on what was to be included in the "official' word. The losers (heretics) in the ideological battle were often eradicated and much of their writings destroyed. Do not underestimate the role of Pauline thought in the final interpretations. Here is a decent website with some of the early contributors: http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml I was always partial to the Essene Gospel of Peace: http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/
