|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 9, 2007 6:57:13 GMT -5
oh and there wasnt a 'bible' before constantines time, there was a torah, and a collection of observations about jesus that were seperate
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 9, 2007 12:19:00 GMT -5
But look. Honestly now, I'm not trying to fight with you or be rude or anything, I'm just trying to show you why this is not true.  We have copies of many of the New Testament books dating back as far as about 130 A.D., and copies of some of the Old Testament books dating back even farther. Now, when comparing these ancient copies to what we have today, we find less than 0.5% error ... just simple typos and such. That shows that they have been remarkebly well preserved. If the emporer did in fact edit the scriptures at a later date, those writings either did not survive or are simply something else other than the Bible we have today, so that point is invalid. The fact of the matter is, the Bible we have today, is almost perfectly the way it has always been, because they show very very little difference at all from the copies we have which were before Constantine's time (or whichever emporer you're refering to). you're not being rude you are simply not reading what im writing at all the books IN the bible have not been edited, it is the whole thing that has..i.e all the books LEFT OUT of the bible. it doesnt matter how many times you say the same thing if you dont read what i write Ok first of all, I think you're the one who isn't reading what I'm writing lol. And second of all, we were talking about the Gospels, and you mentioned that they had been edited, which they have not been. The Gospels are not the entire Bible. This is the first time you've mentioned books being left out. But now that you bring that up, there are no "lost" books of the Bible, because these books not included in the Bible were always known about from the very beginning when they were written, but they were never considered to be a part of the scriptures to begin with, neither by the Jews nor the Christians. They were very historically innacurate; they did not even claim to be the Word of God; they were not authored by prophets, disciples, or apostles; and many contained teachings or concepts that were not biblical. So in other words, to say these could just as easily have at one time been a part of the Bible is basically suggesting that someone like me during this time could come up with their own opinionated views on beliefs, write a book or letter about it, and have it submitted as part of the Bible. That would be total nonsense. The "lost" books were never considered a part of the scriptures from the very beginning, well before Constantine's time. Constantine's time was well after the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New, had already been completely assembled. He did not establish the Bible or decide what books would or would not be included. This is a false rumor that has been spread as a result of the Gnostic "gospels" written by a false religious sect several hundred years after the time of Jesus. It comes from the same source as the fictional story of the Da Vinci Code, which is also a hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 9, 2007 20:10:26 GMT -5
i have spent many years researching this, i learned to read parts of hebrew and got a jewish teacher to do it properly, the 'rumour' has way more evidence for then against, although granted there is evidence against
i at no point said the gospels had been edited, or at least i didnt mean that, you jumped onn that and wouldnt let go
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 10, 2007 2:49:40 GMT -5
I have not been jumping on anything. We were discussing the gospels, not the entire Bible, and you mentioned that the scriptures had been edited. You didn't mention until this page about the books not included in the Bible.
I as well have spent many years and most of my time researching the scriptures and ancient texts, both religious and secular, and I know personally several historians, scholars, and a few scientists both believing and non, but that has hardly anything to do with how creditable my information is. We could both sit here all day claiming to know this and that and have researched this and that, but that does not make it true, and it does not make it anymore likely to be true than anything else. Regardless of how much evidence there is to state this, that doesn't make it true. Many people argue there's far more evidence today to support evolution than there is to state it is not true, but does that make it a fact? Absolutly not. What matters is what the evidence says, not the abundance of it. Have you honestly researched both sides of this honestly? I am not claiming that you have not, but if you havn't then you're only harming yourself by making those claims and just trying to win a debate. The purpose of this is to come to the truth, not to just win.
If you think you have more evidence to suggest this, then why don't you show it? Many of the things you hear against the credibility of the Bible today are a result of the gnostics, who were not Christians, they were people who believed that the god of the Bible was evil until Jesus came, and that only a select few humans can encounter God and learn the truth. All this "evidence" is a result of a cult who was trying to disprove Christianity, but you have to look at the source and the creditibility of it. Those writings were never once even considered to be a part of the Bible or the Torah because they were not God inspired first of all, they were the result of man-made opinions that in many cases contradicted what was God inspired.
|
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 11, 2007 19:48:51 GMT -5
all of it is the result of man made inspirired or not
i am not typing up the research, i dont need to as you have presented no evidence yourself, i did not say it was right simply that i believe it to be right, and i did not suggest that the books were edited you just INTERPRETED my words to meant that, i can quote those bits as it wont take any effort and explain the exact meaning of every word if you wish. no im not prepared ot re research stuff that has taken approximately 15 years to find in the first place, and it is only an amrerican that would suggest a debate is for winning, why u would want to 'win a debate is beyond me
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 12, 2007 16:47:17 GMT -5
I am not misinterpreting anything. You are here directly disagreeing with nearly everything I have to say as if it's a fact. I know you're not going to type up the research lol, because there is no evidence to support the claims you've made, they're all the result of sensational opinions, not factual evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 12, 2007 18:13:05 GMT -5
I am not misinterpreting anything. You are here directly disagreeing with nearly everything I have to say as if it's a fact. I know you're not going to type up the research lol, because there is no evidence to support the claims you've made, they're all the result of sensational opinions, not factual evidence. no, they are factual, just you wont believe them as they contradict what you htink like i said it has been a large part of my life as i dont enter beliefs lightly tbf ur right, what u say isnt a fact, i should stop disagreeing with it as though it is |
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 13, 2007 0:04:36 GMT -5
I'm still waiting to see the evidence to back up these "facts".
|
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 13, 2007 5:31:28 GMT -5
I'm still waiting to see the evidence to back up these "facts". amazing how you can say that really, notice the NOT GOING OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OF RESEARCH bit. this is a very important bit you should read again and again as it clearly states something that is fairly important i have given you souirces and quotes, they should back it up slightly, but tvf im not using the bible extensively to come to these conclusions hence the difficulty in finding it all again |
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 13, 2007 15:23:57 GMT -5
You have not given any sources or quotes lol, not to mention that simply having a source or quote does not make something creditable. I can very easily put up all types of professional websites that seem very convincing, and even publish a book or two if I had the money right now for example, but that does not make me creditable. I have seen many sources that directly contradict one another, so it is not simply having the sources, though that is part of it of course and no you havn't posted any. I'm not saying you have to, but what I'm saying is something is not simply "fact" just because it's what you hear or what you think may be more believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 15, 2007 20:53:23 GMT -5
You have not given any sources or quotes lol, not to mention that simply having a source or quote does not make something creditable. I can very easily put up all types of professional websites that seem very convincing, and even publish a book or two if I had the money right now for example, but that does not make me creditable. I have seen many sources that directly contradict one another, so it is not simply having the sources, though that is part of it of course and no you havn't posted any. I'm not saying you have to, but what I'm saying is something is not simply "fact" just because it's what you hear or what you think may be more believable. i have just you have a) removed them and b) disregarded when i say things like...research what he said, or when this happened |
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 15, 2007 21:55:42 GMT -5
read back thorugh again impressions of whole thing, real ones not pettiness brought on by frustration, and no insults or off topic here notice
Ok, firstly i was impressed by the table but i dont really understand what it means, i know what it means literally but fail to see any relevance to anything by what it displays.
a slight side point, the da vinci code is not a hoax it is a work of fiction, he is not seriously purtailing it as true a thing that becomes abundantly clear if you read digital fortress(another dan brown book) and know anything at all about cryptanalysing ciphers.
the bible as we know it was compiled(not written despite what the gnostics say) in the time of constantine in about 200 AD. it was declared absolute fact and literal in about 400 AD by Bishop Augustine. Notice i say about i believe it was slightly later then that. This was the time that Pelagius was declared excomuniate. I hope you can leave his name on this time he was an important man whether you believe what he said or not. Before it was compiled in this way collections of it(for example three of the four gospels, or sometimes all four, or sometimes four plus some others) were grouped together with the torah and even some other books so in all probability there was a complete bible somewhere, simply by the laws of chance. there was also a lot of copies that emmitted or included certain bits, that are now or not in the bible.
When Constantine compiled the bible, he also included certain symbols that the romans used as christian symbols, and made certain Greek symbols signs of the devil. examples of this include the roman warrior god mithras symetrical cross(notice i say symetrical) and aphrodites symbol pentagon.
These are not nesasarily facts, but a lot of evidence points towards that, too much to be easily disreagarded. I could go and trawl the internet looking for such evidence but as you rightly point out this wouldnt prove or disprove anything as i could set the websites up myself with false quotes right now.
And finally i didnt at any point say they were lost, just that they werent included, and to be fair they werent, and that is a fact
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 16, 2007 14:44:56 GMT -5
You have not given any sources or quotes lol, not to mention that simply having a source or quote does not make something creditable. I can very easily put up all types of professional websites that seem very convincing, and even publish a book or two if I had the money right now for example, but that does not make me creditable. I have seen many sources that directly contradict one another, so it is not simply having the sources, though that is part of it of course and no you havn't posted any. I'm not saying you have to, but what I'm saying is something is not simply "fact" just because it's what you hear or what you think may be more believable. i have just you have a) removed them and b) disregarded when i say things like...research what he said, or when this happened I have not removed any such "sources" as you can tell because not one of your posts says "last edited by: Solitarysoul" except one which I didn't actually edit, I simply hit the edit button by accident instead of the quote button and posted my reply to one of your posts at the end of your post, which I later went back and seperated into seperate posts when I noticed my mistake. The only two posts of yours I have removed are because they are rule violations. It was nothing personal and the reason for their removal had nothing to do with the debate itself. I also really do not appreciate you blaming me for such things. Contrary to what you told me, you clearly are just wanting to win a fight if you resort to blaming me for actions I never did to cover up the fact that you have nothing to back up your statements. If you do have such sources, then post them. As far as research goes, that's what I do, for "fun". There isn't anything you have mentioned yet that I have not researched, and I would be more than happy to research anything you ask me to, I never once claimed I would not. But the fact is that again doesn't support your argument if the research I do simply backs up what I've already stated. |
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 16, 2007 16:04:57 GMT -5
The table basically just roughly indicates how much more well preserved the New Testiment is than any other work of literally we have, indicating just how accurate the copies we have today are to the originals, in comparison to other very popular literary works such as the Iliad. Also I was trying to indicate that there are far more eye witness accounts, as well as well preserved copies of matieral, of the New Testament than there are of the recordings Caesar made. In other words what I was meaning to show is that if we know Caesar exists, and if we know that the evidence and records we have by him are at all accurate, then we for sure know that the New Testament can be considered to be extremely accurate. If you take that into consideration then yes my mistake. What I mean by "hoax" is simply that the Da Vinci Code is not true, though many people think otherwise because at the beginning of the story it says that all events are based off of factual evidence. The truth is that yes many of the things in the Da Vinci Code are based off of actual historical documents, but the "hoax" in it is that these historical documents that the story is based off of have long sense been proven to be false accounts. That it not entirely corrent. For one, Constantine wasn't even born until 280 AD, and the time in question is 325 AD. Several of the books were still discussed about until around 400AD, but the Bible itself had been completely compiled roughly around 100 or so years after the death of Jesus, which would be somewhere around 130 - 150 AD. The Old Testament began to come together in the time of Babylonian captivity, which was around 605 - 535 BC, and was completed most likely before 100 BC. The New Testament was then written in the late 1st century AD and compiled within the next few decades afterward. After this time the Bible was not edited again. Some argue that the Apocrypha, much later recognized by the Catholic Church, is considered to be a part of the Old Testament, but it is not, and you will not find them it any Bible except those that specifically say that it is included (and those that do include it state that it is basically seperate from the Bible). The Apocrypha was written in the last few centuries BC and was never accepted by the Jews, nor the Protestants, and we never find Jesus quoting from these books, unlike the rest of the Old Testament. I do know quite a bit about Pelagius. In fact, though I do not know for sure, he is possibly one of my ancestors (or a relative of that family rather) ... though I'm not proud of that if that is the case lol. Pelagius was condemned of heresy by many councils all throughout Christian history ... including the major ones of his own time that we hear of. His teachings were based off of his own opinions, not the Word of God, and they directly contradicted many things Jesus said. For example, Pelagius denied that man is sinful by nature, and that man can fulfill God's commandments through his own free will and efforts, rather than God's grace. Not only is this directly against the whole gospel that Jesus taught, but if he was right, then it would virtually make Jesus, and especially His death and reserection, completely pointless in the first place. In fact, Pelagius' teachings were so contrary to that of Christ that he was declared to be the teacher of a different religion known as Pelagianism. He was not a Christian, despite whether or not he thought he was. It's important to understand that holding a belief is not simply a matter of saying "I am this" or "I believe that", it is a matter of a lifestyle. People can say whatever they want or think, but it is their lifestyle, actions, and character that express the truth. Please stop making up these comments. If you ever posted his name in the first place, you and everyone else (because you can see if someone edits your posts or not) knows that I did not remove anything, and most importantly it does not help you to make such claims. The truth shows. 1) sources? evidence? lol 2) Constantine did not compile the Bible. That was another false claim made by the gnostics. The Bible had been entirely completed, and not edited again, almost 200 years before this time. 3) Again I'd like to see evidence of this. We have actual copies of books of the Bible that were copied well before Constantine's time, and when compared side by side to what we have today, the biggest errors and differences are a typo here and there, or a missing word, usually only such as "and" or "the" now and then. Why would you listen to other such claims when we have such proof as this? It can't get much clearer than that. If you need sources or more info, here's some of the books I dug a lot of all of this out of: Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307"Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," Richard M. Fales, Ph.D. (an article) The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Habermas, Gary R., 1996The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, 1998 |
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 17, 2007 0:27:16 GMT -5
[/b][/quote] yeah dan brown is not that good an author, and his research is very minimal, that is the point i was making with digital fortress. it is about a huge decoding computer that is supposedly state of the art and amazing deciphering machine, but it simply would not work, i could write a code that it wouldnt be able to crack and i am barely trained in code writing( just basic knowledge for degree course) so i assume the religious 'research' for the da vinci code is just as spurious |
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 17, 2007 0:37:23 GMT -5
i have read two of those books out of four, and they do back up what you are saying, i dislike the statement condeming anything like that as work of the gnostics, some of it is true(or at least highly likely to be, not nesasarily as it is a long time ago) constantine was not emporor on 400 ad he was dead.
he made very important descisions in the creating of the christian religion, after re doing a few bits of research i already knew but re did them, that there is evidence to suggest both for and against him actually compiling the bible
assuming he didnt you at least cant deny that in the council of nicea he (and others) decided a few things that christians had to live by for many years whether they still hold true today or not.
And finally, you are yet to source anything as quoting the bible during a discusion on the bible is not a source
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 17, 2007 2:37:25 GMT -5
Yes Constantine lived from 280 to close to 330 I think it was, or something like that. I wasn't meaning to say that he was the one who had anything to do with the Bible in 400. The books in 400 weren't edited, that's just about the time when the contriversy for the most part had been settled and the entire Bible was accepted as fact (even though it had already been entirely completed for the past 250 years or so) Ok but see that still doesn't answer my question. We have proof that the Bible today is just as it was even before Constantine was born, because we can compare the actual copies side by side. But even assuming that Constantine did play some sort of role in modifying the Christian faith, I still fail to see what evidence there is to back this up. Seriously, I'm not trying to be smart, if there is evidence, I really do want to see it, not to sit here and argue with you lol  , but to see how it holds up to everything else. However even if Constantine did play a role in modifying the lifestyle or culture of Christians during that time, if you're saying something like that, the actual scriptures and doctrine that Jesus taught which was recorded by His disciples and apostles and those under their authority, was never edited itself. I honestly don't know enough about Constantine yet to say that he did not have some sort of affect in the lifestyle of Christians during his time if that is what you are refering to. But if that is what you are talking about, I just don't see what relevence it has considering the fact that this debate was brought on after statements made suggesting that the Bible has many errors in it, because the actual scriptures themselves are the same way today that they always have been, and that's what real Chrisianity is based off of. If Constantine had some kind of affect on the culture of Christians during that time, then he just did, but that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the Bible itself today. And so therefore it surely is no reason to not take the Bible seriously. |
|
rsf
Prayer Team 
Posts: 75
|
Post by rsf on Mar 17, 2007 21:33:57 GMT -5
As far as I know, Constantine only put the council together and had no part in it. I don't even think he chose the people in the council, only insisted that it should be formed because of all the things that were written much later, being confused with the real writings of the apostles. On a side note, I do believe that an all knowing, all powerful God (Which He is) would make sure the correct books got into the bible as we know it. This of course is my opinion, but God is not the author of confusion, only man has that title  |
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Mar 18, 2007 15:38:34 GMT -5
On a side note, I do believe that an all knowing, all powerful God (Which He is) would make sure the correct books got into the bible as we know it. This of course is my opinion, but God is not the author of confusion, only man has that title Very true! |
|
|
|
Post by relativestranger on Mar 19, 2007 8:29:32 GMT -5
On a side note, I do believe that an all knowing, all powerful God (Which He is) would make sure the correct books got into the bible as we know it. This of course is my opinion, but God is not the author of confusion, only man has that title Very true! yes it is true, that is what he believes |
|
