I speak a little bit of other languages and aren't these translated? That's not exactly the same thing.
A gathering of Cathloic Bishops? Presided over by an Emperor...Constantine? Is it true that the Catholic Encylcopedia says "Some bishops, blinded by the splendor of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heavens". Is that what you place your faith in, Max?
of course...they're translations. i don't speak Greek..or Hebrew..or whatever language the original documents were originally written in.
He could have easily said instead that God is your real and only master, with the implication being that Caesar is not important. I have read that early Christians put an emphasis on their spirtual "kingdom", eschewing secular concerns.
my faith is in Jesus Christ, cohen. i don't place any faith in the catholic encyclopedia. frankly, i've never even leafed through it. i do know there was a great deal of tension between eastern and western churches that caused a split...perhaps that's behind these comments. but i don't know. what i do know is what i've said above...the oldest copies we have of New Testament documents are from well before the convening of the council of nicea...and there are no changes!
but paul, who wrote in the first century, told the romans to obey authority... he could have said that...but he didn't...because he wasn't ready to hand his life over yet. he concerned himself with things far bigger than taxation...and he always alluded to the fact that people were tryingn to trick him into saying something to get him killed...by the way, that story is retold even in gospels that don't make the bible cut...it's in the gospel of thomas, for instance.
Originally posted by MadMax my faith is in Jesus Christ, cohen. i don't place any faith in the catholic encyclopedia. frankly, i've never even leafed through it. i do know there was a great deal of tension between eastern and western churches that caused a split...perhaps that's behind these comments. but i don't know. I don't see what your faith in Jesus has to do with the discussion at hand. We're discussing the confidence you have in Constantine, a group of Catholic Bishops, and the recorded record of what took place between them in the 4th century. what i do know is what i've said above...the oldest copies we have of New Testament documents are from well before the convening of the council of nicea...and there are no changes! How is that you know this? Were you there? And I'm not being sarcastic; just making a point. Based on what little that I've read, these issues are not definitive.
1. wait..you asked me if i was placing faith in something written in the catholic encyclopedia...i responded, no. 2. you may be missing my point...archaelogists have found shreds of very early christian writings...and they match up with what we have today. obviously they're not translasted in english, but the text and message is still the same. these documents can be viewed in various museums, some in israel, as i understand it. the earliest copies of new testament documents we have are from 125 a.d. we don't even have documents written by great B.C. authors (like the great greek philosophers, for instance) before around 900 a.d. there are more exact ancient copies of books from the bible, both old and new testament, then there are of any printed work in history...and it's by a huge margin (the illiad is second, by the way). and we have no other documents than New Testament writings where are extant copies are dated to as close in time as they were written...i mean no other documents are even close to appearing in the same century as when they were written. and what i'm saying is...if my gospel of john reads like the one we've found from 125 a.d....then i'm not real concerned what happened in 320 a.d. it's a problem for the church, church polity and governance...decisions made about celebration of the sabbath, and theology...but it does nothing to diminish the reliablity of the texts.
Originally posted by MadMax 1. wait..you asked me if i was placing faith in something written in the catholic encyclopedia...i responded, no. No I was asking if you placed your faith in the Council at Nicea. 2. you may be missing my point...archaelogists have found shreds of very early christian writings...and they match up with what we have today. obviously they're not translasted in english, but the text and message is still the same. these documents can be viewed in various museums, some in israel, as i understand it. the earliest copies of new testament documents we have are from 125 a.d. we don't even have documents written by great B.C. authors (like the great greek philosophers, for instance) before around 900 a.d. there are more exact ancient copies of books from the bible, both old and new testament, then there are of any printed work in history...and it's by a huge margin (the illiad is second, by the way). and we have no other documents than New Testament writings where are extant copies are dated to as close in time as they were written...i mean no other documents are even close to appearing in the same century as when they were written. and what i'm saying is...if my gospel of john reads like the one we've found from 125 a.d....then i'm not real concerned what happened in 320 a.d. it's a problem for the church, church polity and governance...decisions made about celebration of the sabbath, and theology...but it does nothing to diminish the reliablity of the texts. Let me understand you. You're saying that there is one, word-for-word, always-consistent, definitive Bible, or lets say New Testament? And you're saying that the Bishops at Nicea were the ones who compiled this one, indisputable document. Is that correct?
no...i misspoke...i know of no compilation that predates the council of nicea...the bible, as you know, is nothing more than a collection of books and letters. i am saying there are ancient documents (pre-council at nicea) that match up word for word with letters in the bible. in fact, the dead sea scrolls contain the book of isaiah that is absolutely word for word with what's in the bible. no..i don't place any faith in the council of nicea..but i don't doubt God's ability to work through human beings, even through odd circumstances. again...my faith isn't in the work of this council compiling these documents. in fact, i'm not catholic...there are many things i disagree with that are accepted as tradition in catholocism. but we share the same faith and hope in jesus christ, nonetheless. i would point out this...we can all quibble over the details that might be different in a translation or a version...but it's not like in one version the butler did it, and in the alternate ending he didn't. even in the gospels and letters that don't make the cut, the story is told of jesus claiming to be the son of god...dying on the cross...and being resurrected. getting back to the main point...even if you're 100% right...even if this whole thing is to be blamed on the romans...he was deserted by his followers...he was in opposition to the temple authority...he was crucified...and eyewitnesses claim he was resurrected. then these men trampled the world to tell them about it, suffering all sorts of hardships, including death.
cohen -- just want to say...i respect the hell out of you, so please don't let me step on your toes here. i do not seek to offend you..i hope i haven't.
Slightly OT, but I always find people quoting directly from the English translation of the Bible as if it were the exact words of Yahweh to be very troubling. My minor forays into research into this indicate that much of any translated document should be footnoted and crossreferenced like most of the stuff I've read on Shakespeare and it's in English - the actual nuance of idioms and meaning of basic words and why a translator chooses one over the other can have a dramatic effect on the final meaning. I believe the traditional reasoning is that the translators were divinely inspired which if one accepts makes this a moot point.
the last point is exactly right...that has always been the position of the church, for obvious reasons. talking with my pastor about this, he said in seminary he learned the languages that we are translating from...he always says that reading in english we're getting about 90% of the words pretty dead on...but about 10% of the words have meanings that are really not a good fit for english translation. one example many of us know is the agape love sort of definition...love being explained in different ways...we have one word for love and the greeks had 3 or 4...we just don't have a good translating word for that.
I do not think you are correct here. For example, it is my understanding that not all extant copies of the Gospels are in in textual agreement. Certainly the Gospel of Mark has its ending expanded. Edit: I think you are now saying that no gross changes were made from the time of the first extant copies until the council of Nicea. Agreed.
you're certainly right about the Gospel of Mark...there is an addition..but that addition clearly appears after a period of time. i agree entirely with you that it's not part of the original document. i think that's pretty clear. when you say not in textual agreement...what kind of differences are we talking about? i have never seen any evidence of some "blow your doors off" kinda change from one copy to the next..right on through to the way they appear in the NIV bible that's in my car right now. Edit: given your edit, i'd say we're in agreement!
Max, Not surprising, but the discussion kept diverging from the movie an it's potential biases. Obviously, this a trivial topic compared to the true spiritual issues. Of course the movie won't be trivial if it effects a minority adversely. It is apparent that you have more faith than I in any specific version of the Bible. I was aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls matching part of the bible (I wonder if Martin Luther would have still questioned the Cathloic version if these had been discovered before he lived), but I am also under the understanding that there were many early, and differing versions of the New Testament and the various books. Scholars today have difficulty trying to determine which version was earlier, so I found it surprising that you say it was resolved by some bishops in 300 AD. I know the bishops decided which books to include, and which versions of the accepted books to include, and that was what accepted as gospel by the Catholic church. Someday when I have the time, I think I would find it interesting to research this some. BTW, it's a pleasure to have a mature discussion. Religious discussions have a tendency to get out-of-hand.
cohen -- again...i'm not saying the council at nicea got it right. i frankly know of only a few things they did...which was changing the sabbath, setting up some rules for church polity (including the idea that priests/bishops can't marry), and a few others like that. what i'm trying to say, and apparently not doing a great job of it, is that the bible is incredibly reliable, particularly when compared to other historical documents...we just have so many copies of so many different books that go back so far. there is so much consistency in those documents...and those documents read like the bible i own. yeah, if you get a chance, research it...there are people far smarter than me that can explain this better. you guys keep me sharp...i spent last night, after my son went to sleep, reading the gospel of thomas, again (one that didn't make the cut)
I would have to go look into some of my prior research to be sure but ... Some of the changes that were made after the date of the known extant copies include making Mary holy (a virgin her whole life with Jesus's siblings being Joseph's children from a prior marriage), and creating the holy trinity. All in all, just some theogical tiding up of the scriptures.
There were various compilations prior to the council of Nicea. There were various sects of Christians then and they had different books. This was prior to the council of Nicea. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html By the third century of our era, we have something called Christianity with its own sacred books, What happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its canon. One of the first things Constantine does, as Emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The gnostic Christians are targeted, ... and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of internal purge of the church as one Emperor ruling one Empire tries to have this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of This shows that other groups had different books or a different canon. Anyway the italics part is my own commentary. There is a lot more information on the website. But there were different versions of governing texts for various Christian groups prior to Nicea.
i see the trinity pretty clearly..but i've certainly been conditioned. but my understanding is the word that was translated to "virgin" is better translated as "young, unmarried woman."
