PhillyKev 0 #76 December 22, 2004 QuoteCorrect. But show me one that has been intentionally altered with the intent to deceive. Gospel of St. Thomas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #77 December 22, 2004 QuoteI don't think there's an intent to decieve - both sides think they're right. The protestant view would be the books were heretically added by someone in the past so ought to be removed to preseve the true word of God. The Catholic view would be they have been heretically removed. Thus at least one reason for the conflict as applying your above quote, which I'm sure is just one place we'd find such sentiment, each view the other faction as heretics. The Catholic Bible just contains some more books than the Protestant one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong. It’s just that the Protestants don’t consider them to be inspired. It doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re right or they’re wrong. It does nothing to diminish the message. The "lost books" were never lost. These so called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. These so called lost books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies. These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles. Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #78 December 22, 2004 I'm not talking about the going on 200 "lost" books - just the 7 that were removed in 1618 by the Synod of Dordrecht (yup - had to look the name and exact date up ). The Catholic church obviously considers them to be very much inspired by God and authored with good providence or they would not be in their Bible and remain there today. The fact that the Protestants disagree with them is not really evidence of much more than a disagreement between the two factions of the faith. I'm not trying to suggest the books are "wrong" in any way; I'm merely observing an apparent argument between the two parties and the fact that those 7 books were in one version of the Bible (and remain so) and are not in another version of the Bible having been removed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #79 December 22, 2004 QuoteGospel of St. Thomas. For whatever reason (unauthenticated authorship, uninspired quality, not shown authored by either Prophets or Apostles), the Gospel of St. Thomas was not included in either the Catholic or Protestant Biblical Canon. It has no bearing on the validity of the existing Bible. That’s not to say that it is wrong altogether and doesn’t have truth in it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #80 December 22, 2004 QuoteI'm not talking about the going on 200 "lost" books - just the 7 that were removed in 1618 by the Synod of Dordrecht (yup - had to look the name and exact date up ). The Catholic church obviously considers them to be very much inspired by God and authored with good providence or they would not be in their Bible and remain there today. The fact that the Protestants disagree with them is not really evidence of much more than a disagreement between the two factions of the faith. I'm not trying to suggest the books are "wrong" in any way; I'm merely observing an apparent argument between the two parties and the fact that those 7 books were in one version of the Bible (and remain so) and are not in another version of the Bible having been removed. Ok....then I...uhhhh....agree with you. Just don't see as how it has bearing on the validity of the central message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #81 December 22, 2004 QuoteI believe that we are sinful and selfish by nature. I believe that we are separated from God by this selfish nature. Whoa. Really? What happened to "made in God's image" and all that? I tend to think that people are fundamentally good, and that it's our own actions that take us "down the path of wickedness" so to speak. I always assume that someone I don't know is good, honest, upright and so forth until they demonstrate themselves to be otherwise.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #82 December 22, 2004 QuoteJust don't see as how it has bearing on the validity of the central message. Didn't say it did. Just learnt something from your post (re taking away/adding to the Bible and the resultant heresy) and made my original observation about the Protestants and Catholics. Didn't mean to add to the argument on either side... just highlighting the fact that some people here listen to these debates often and learn from them without necessarily contributing all the time. Confucius say: "Man has two ears but only one mouth, so wise man should listen twice as much as he speaks". (edit to add that I'm not insinuating you should shut up and listen... damned t'internet can give the wrong impression sometimes). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #83 December 22, 2004 The Gospel of Thomas is also not included in the Catholic Apocrypha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #84 December 22, 2004 QuoteDidn't say it did. Just learnt something from your post (re taking away/adding to the Bible and the resultant heresy) and made my original observation about the Protestants and Catholics. Including or not including a book in a collection of books known as the Bible is way different from altering text withing one of the books with the intent to change the message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #85 December 22, 2004 QuoteWhat happened to "made in God's image" and all that? An image isn't the real thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #86 December 22, 2004 Well that's not exactly how I'd interpret it. If you remove a whole book from the Bible you surely remove something from the Bible itself and thus change the overall message. It's merely the difference between looking at the overall picture or the microcosm of an individual line of text. Not to say the Protestant reform was heretical - as I indicated I'm sure they consider the book to not belong to the Bible. The fact that the Catholics dissagree with that interpretation is, as I indicated merely evidence that there are differences of interpretation between the two factions - no surprise there. I don't think it deminishes the message of either version of the Bible - simply because there is another group of people out there who believe your book two be wrong predates the seperation of Protestants and Catholics by centuries, you only have to look to another religion to be told you're wrong. Similarly just because there's someone there to tell you you're wrong doesn't mean you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #87 December 22, 2004 QuoteI’m curious; when you explain to your children what you are celebrating, do you do so from neutral perspective allowing your children to make up there own minds as to whether there is any authenticity in your particular religion. Or do you just force it upon them giving them no choice but to accept it??? I'm curious, do you, as an athiest, explain to your children why you do not celebrate the birth of Christ and do so from a completely neutral perspective allowing your children to make up their own minds as to whether or not there is indeed authenticity to your particular lack of religion, or do you just force it upon them giving them no choice or little choice but to accept the non-existence of a God as fact? Note, I am not Christian, but feel that a Christian parent has just as much right to teach their child in their belief system as any other line of thought. I would teach my children not to be axe murderers, to be kind to others and tolerant of others, etc, because that is my particular moral code and feel that alternatives to that are essentially wrong and not in my childrens' best interests. Christianity is a moral code and belief system in the same respect. Jen Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #88 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteThere's no wonder there have been so many wars and terrorist acts between the Catholics and Protestants then... they're 7 books adrift of each other aren't they? Correct. But show me one that has been intentionally altered with the intent to deceive. no way to know... its not like there are ANY original texts for comparison... you have to accept 'on faith' that what you are reading is 'as written'... or even that it was written by the people it claims, much less that what it claims to recount actually occured in any way shape or form as described... there is an awful lot of faith there... of course you could believe in Santa on the same basis of faith....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #89 December 22, 2004 QuoteFor whatever reason (unauthenticated authorship, uninspired quality, not shown authored by either Prophets or Apostles), the Gospel of St. Thomas was not included in either the Catholic or Protestant Biblical Canon. I'm sure it has nothing to do with it being interepreted to strengthen Christ's condemnation of a heirarchical religious institution. "show me one that has been intentionally altered with the intent to deceive." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #90 December 22, 2004 Quoteno way to know... its not like there are ANY original texts for comparison... you have to accept 'on faith' that what you are reading is 'as written'... or even that it was written by the people it claims, much less that what it claims to recount actually occured in any way shape or form as described... There isn’t evidence to show that it was written by anyone other than what it claims. However, I’ll get into that later. I have to leave soon. As for the accuracy of the text, if judged for accuracy and reliability, like any other ancient work is, on the basis of textual criticism, one must consider the following. ***Taken from a study by Don Stewart*** We need textual criticism because: 1. We do not possess originals and must rely on copies to reproduce the text. 2. Until about 500 years ago, all documents were copied by hand (manuscripts). The ones we have today differ somewhat due to scribal mistakes which have developed. 3. In the case of The New Testament, there is an abundance of material to evaluate. Primary lines of evidence: 1. The Greek Manuscripts - The Papyri – First group of manuscripts written on papyrus. (98 existing) - The Uncials (majuscules) – Carefully printed inch high manuscripts. (299 existing) - The Minuscules – Smaller manuscript used to produce copies faster. (2,812 existing) - The Lectionaries – Portion of Gospels read during service. (2,281 existing) - Total: 5,490 manuscripts - These are fragmentary and not necessarily complete. - The total number of surviving manuscripts is larger than all other ancient works. 2. The Versions - Translation of the various New Testament books into languages other than the original Greek. - Latin Vulgate – Over 10,000 manuscripts (may be as high as 25,000) - Ethiopic – Over 2000 manuscripts - Slavic – Over 4,101 manuscripts - Armenian – Over 2,587 manuscripts - Syriac Peshitta – Over 350 manuscripts - Bohairic – Over 100 manuscripts - Translation was rarely done because it was so time consuming. Only very important items were copied and great care and supervision was taken in doing so. 3. The writings of The Church Fathers - Quotations of the New Testament from their writings. - Even without all of the other evidence mentioned above, the entire New Testament can be reconstructed using only the writings of The Church Fathers. There is some variation within the text but a very small amount. Of the variations that have occurred, only about 50 are considered noteworthy and none of them affect Christian doctrine or the reliability of the text. Reasons to accept authenticity of the Bible: 1. The short time span between original and manuscript copies. - Codex Vaticanus (complete NT copy) was composed within 250 years of original writing of The New Testament. - We also have manuscript fragments dating back further. 2. The great number of manuscripts. - The more manuscripts available, the better the chances are of reconstructing the original. - It was rare to copy and even rarer to translate early works. 3. The lack of substantial variation between the manuscripts. - Of the variant readings that do exist, only about 50 are of importance and none of them affect Christian doctrine at all. This at least shows that the vast majority of the text we have today (and everything that concerns Christian doctrine) can be trusted for reliability. Whether you believe the testimony within it or not, however, is something else altogether. Quotethere is an awful lot of faith there... of course you could believe in Santa on the same basis of faith.... This is a snide comment. However, belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy would in fact be considered blind faith. Given the above, belief or faith in what is in The New Testament is not. You may not agree with it but the Christian faith certainly has basis (and a lot of it). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #91 December 22, 2004 QuoteThe First Ecumenical Council held at Nicea in 325 was formed by Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century to deal with the false teachings of Arianism which denied the deity of Christ. Are you asserting that they altered the Bible in order to ensure the deity of Christ was mentioned? Credible theological historians suggest just that. What happened to the reincarnation belief held by early Christians? Also, why is Mary Magdeline held in such low regard by the church, since the word used for prostitute, in the time of Christ, also translated roughlt to high priestess, which is wholly consistent with early Christianity's male/female duality.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #92 December 22, 2004 QuoteCorrect. But show me one that has been intentionally altered with the intent to deceive. Just because they're not included in the Protestant Canon doesn't mean that they don't have some validity. The same argument could be made for the Latter Day Saints.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #93 December 22, 2004 actually all of those are easily explained by simple collusion on the part of the original authors...everything after comes from believers to believers.... if you control the means (and priests encompassed nearly all the literati) Quote Translation was rarely done because it was so time consuming. Only very important items were copied and great care and supervision was taken in doing so. there are no sources to contradict your claims... particularly when you hold council to make sure everything 'lines up' here is a simple question for you... do you believe that the words in red in some versions are written 'as spoken' then translated by an actual person? why? what evidence do you have to back that belief? what makes you believe that that level of detail was recalled and recorded decades after those words were supposedly spoken?? blind faith?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #94 December 22, 2004 QuoteThe "lost books" were never lost. These so called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. These so called lost books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies. These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles. From a strictly academic standpoint, the Nag Hammadi texts give us the most accurate view of Jesus's life and teachings ever available, at least since the death of Jesus. It is very difficult to dismiss the difference between these texts and the KJV Bible as innacuracies of the Nag Hammadi texts.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #95 December 22, 2004 QuoteAlso, why is Mary Magdeline held in such low regard by the church, since the word used for prostitute, in the time of Christ, also translated roughlt to high priestess, which is wholly consistent with early Christianity's male/female duality. I'm not sure which Christian Church you are referring to, but in the Catholic Church she is Saint Mary Magdalene and is held in very high regard. As are all the saints. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #96 December 22, 2004 in 1969, the catholic church corrected the misinformation regarding Mary Magdalene. She was not a prostitute. People were confusing her with Mary of Bethany from the gospel of Luke, and a few other minor females (either un-named or coincidentally named Mary) mentioned in the bible http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #97 December 23, 2004 Many people out there believe the Christmas tree originates from pagan traditions, and is incorrectly associated with Christianity. (Read here and here.) They say the tree is a phallic symbol. So, what's under your Christmas dick this year ? -No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #98 December 23, 2004 a pair of beach balls..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #99 December 23, 2004 QuoteSo, what's under your Christmas dick this year ? Presents...... ~R+R...Except these are the type you don't unwrap......~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #100 December 23, 2004 Quote>There is no other reason for Christmas than Christ's birth. If that were true we'd celebrate it on Jan 6th, the day he was most likely born. December 25th was a date derived by the church for the celebration of his birth. Which is no problem - but not exactly a celebration of his birthdate. It's more likely that Jesus was born in the springtime, probably March. This is when the shepherds are out in the fields with their sheep, they're not out there at this time of the year. Christmas was moved to December in the Roman Empire so that Christians could celebrate during the Roman Saturnalia festival and not draw undue attention to themselves. But the American tradition of Christmas has only marginal connections to Christ's birth. Christmas had a "problem" with its image by the early/mid 19th century. It was held in disrepute as a holiday for drunkards and beggars to make a public nuiscance of themselves. Caroling started as rowdy drunks banging on people's doors and demanding to be ADMITTED into the home for food and drink. Done that for the homeless lately ? When they're wasted ? Well that was the problem. So the notion of a Santa Claus, who brought presents to YOUR home IF you were good took hold. The idea of a Christmas with people STAYING HOME with their families was promoted. I don't personally care for this PC "happy holidays" shit. I wish people a Merry Christmas. But the idea of boycotting stores because they don't conform to a religious ideal of the season is un-American bullshit. Boycotting is for serious shit, like when people are being mistreated. Like for racially segregated buses and that sort of thing. This minister who's organizing the boycott in Virginia of businesses that wish people "happy holidays" is an asshole, and he needs to be told. And oh yeah, Merry Christmas (NOT Xmas) to all, and to all a good night. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
