Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US

[Crypto2015]

I would agree that they didn't change it dramatically (although there are plenty of small subtle details). But they did pick and choose what went into the bible. There were a whole slew of writings that were not included because they didn't fit the church leaders goals. There have also been alternative versions of many of the books of the bible found that are drastically different.

Many of these could have had a large affect on what is considered truth in the modern church as it is today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

Can you prove anything of what you are saying? Because I know the facts and they don't support what you are saying. The apocryphal Gospels mentioned in your links were written much later than the true Gospels and contain things that are so evidently mythological that nobody take them seriously. Plus the apocryphal Gospels were ever popular among the Early Church, since the Early Church knew that they were nothing but fictional works. Unlike the true Gospels, the apocryphal Gospels were not even mentioned by the early bishops, who used to quote extensively from the true Gospels.

 

[metis]

There was debate about the Gospel of John, and part of this was due to the fact that it reads quite differently than the synoptics in various areas. Also there was a question on authorship even though it says at the beginning that it was written by John on Patmos. A fair number of theologians question if John wrote the whole thing, and some question as to whether he wrote any of it, especially since the linguistics appear to change as one reads along. Some have hypothesized that maybe John the Baptist may have written part of it.

Two things, with one being that today we see a book like John's gospel as being one book, but that may not have been what it was at the beginning. Secondly, it was acceptable back then to use your mentor's name as the inspiration for the book, thus you would use his name rather than yours to give him the credit. So, John's gospel could have theoretically been written by a disciple of his.

 

[Underhill]

Can you prove anything of what you are saying? Because I know the facts and they don't support what you are saying. The apocryphal Gospels mentioned in your links were written much later than the true Gospels and contain things that are so evidently mythological that nobody take them seriously. Plus the apocryphal Gospels were ever popular among the Early Church, since the Early Church knew that they were nothing but fictional works. Unlike the true Gospels, the apocryphal Gospels were not even mentioned by the early bishops, who used to quote extensively from the true Gospels.

Much later being how long exactly? The original gospels were written, according to religious scholars, between 70 and 150AD. These books I am talking about were dated to 100-200AD.

But I see we are going to have the standard problem I have debating believers. I think the whole works is fiction. So debating which fairy tale is real and which is fake seems a bit silly from where I sit.

I will say this. Find me a reasonably scholarly work, not some text written by some preacher or priest but a well researched document, that says these works were considered fiction and I might take you seriously. I've never seen any evidence of that and I have spent a great deal of time on the subject. In fact the evidence I have seen says the opposite. I can't imagine the church getting too upset about these 'fictional' titles if they were widely believed to be such by those who read them. But that is not the case. People were thrown out of the church, books were burned, even people killed based upon disagreements over which books were 'inspired by god'.

That's an awful lot of hubbub for works of fiction.

And here is another important problem with your statements. If a Bishop or Priest was found to have beliefs or teach from those books not deemed worthy, they were excommunicated. Their writings burned, their opinions discarded. They lost all authority and had no voice. So why would it surprise you that these gospels were rarely mentioned in books largely found in church archives? There are plenty of stories of such excommunications, but almost none of the beliefs of those excommunicated. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Crypto2015]

There was debate about the Gospel of John, and part of this was due to the fact that it reads quite differently than the synoptics in various areas. Also there was a question on authorship even though it says at the beginning that it was written by John on Patmos. A fair number of theologians question if John wrote the whole thing, and some question as to whether he wrote any of it, especially since the linguistics appear to change as one reads along. Some have hypothesized that maybe John the Baptist may have written part of it.

Two things, with one being that today we see a book like John's gospel as being one book, but that may not have been what it was at the beginning. Secondly, it was acceptable back then to use your mentor's name as the inspiration for the book, thus you would use his name rather than yours to give him the credit. So, John's gospel could have theoretically been written by a disciple of his.

Do you realize that you have absolutely nothing to prove what you are saying? I mean that all these conjectures are profitable for Biblical scholars, many of whom are atheists, since it if extremely difficult to say anything new in the field of Biblical studies. Hence, they come up with the most absurd hypothesis just to say something original. They have no proof to support their conjectures, but they still publish them because by publishing papers on these things they advance their careers. Other scholars support them in their endeavors because they are all in the same boat.

 

[Crypto2015]

So you have an article that is addressing only one chapter of the 929 chapters of the OT. That's not impressive, nor does it make for a convincing argument because it says nothing about 99.999% of the OT. They may have been physically preserved, but the English translations are terrible, meaning that much of what the English reader reads does not match up with what the documents where originally saying - granted, it's a problem with any translation, and even translating songs from one language to another can be very difficult, and it's the reason there are many footnotes in many philosophy books that are longer than the text of the page. But, with the English Bible, they got a lot of it wrong.

And it is precisely this "obey your master" that condones and affirms slavery. Not once does the Bible say anything that can, even remotely, be interpreted as saying slavery is bad.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek when slapped, give up your shirt when sued, and walk the extra mile. But he did affirm and normalize slavery by stating that even slaves and free people are equal before him. Paul stated, several times, that slaves are to obey, which is very much condoning slavery. Trying to say it isn't condoning slavery is like trying to say that a man who says a woman needs to learn her place and please her husband isn't condoning misogyny.

The article actually talked not about 99% of the Old Testament, but about 100% of the Old Testament, with the exception of the book of Esther, which wasn't found among the Dead Sea scrolls. The scholars say that 100% of the Old Testament has been preserved. They discussed Isaiah 53 just as an example. Regarding slavery, you keep repeating the same unsupported statement and you cannot see beyond your initial prejudices.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free," (Luke 4:18)

The statement above, uttered by Jesus, is completely incompatible with slavery. Moreover, the real slavery is slavery from sin. That's what concern Christianity the most. Once spiritual slavery has been destroyed, legal slavery is also destroyed. Neither Jesus nor Paul condoned slavery. I know that deep inside you know this, but your irrational hatred towards anything Christian prevents you from acknowledging the truth.

 

[YmirGF]

Holy derailed thread, Batman!

 

[Crypto2015]

Much later being how long exactly? The original gospels were written, according to religious scholars, between 70 and 150AD. These books I am talking about were dated to 100-200AD.

But I see we are going to have the standard problem I have debating believers. I think the whole works is fiction. So debating which fairy tale is real and which is fake seems a bit silly from where I sit.

I will say this. Find me a reasonably scholarly work, not some text written by some preacher or priest but a well researched document, that says these works were considered fiction and I might take you seriously. I've never seen any evidence of that and I have spent a great deal of time on the subject. In fact the evidence I have seen says the opposite. I can't imagine the church getting too upset about these 'fictional' titles if they were widely believed to be such by those who read them. But that is not the case. People were thrown out of the church, books were burned, even people killed based upon disagreements over which books were 'inspired by god'.

That's an awful lot of hubbub for works of fiction.

And here is another important problem with your statements. If a Bishop or Priest was found to have beliefs or teach from those books not deemed worthy, they were excommunicated. Their writings burned, their opinions discarded. They lost all authority and had no voice. So why would it surprise you that these gospels were rarely mentioned in books largely found in church archives? There are plenty of stories of such excommunications, but almost none of the beliefs of those excommunicated. Coincidence? I think not.

Where do you get your info? The Gospels are dated as follows: Matthew (50-70 AD), Mark (55 to 70 AD), John (80-90 AD), Luke (before 62 AD) Acts (62 AD). Paul's letter date from the 50's and 60's. The apocryphal gospels started to appear in the second century (with the exception of the Gospel of the Hebrews) and were never popular among the members of the early church, who, on the other hand, placed great trust on the canonical Gospels. The tradition of the Early church strongly links the canonical gospels to their apostolic authors (Matthew, Luke, Mark and John). Regarding me finding something for you, I don't need to prove anything to you. You are the one who are making unsupported wild claims about the Bible because you read some anti-Christian webpage and you believed in it as if it were the word of God. You are the one who has to prove what he is saying. Also, you claim that the church persecuted those who upheld the beliefs contained in the apocryphal gospels. Can you prove this? Of course you can't. Furthermore, the early church was being heavily persecuted by the Roman authorities. The early church had absolutely no power to persecute anyone.

 

[Crypto2015]

It was Nicaea that I was referring to when I said they did pick and choose what went into the bible. Nicaea didn't allow for much actual changing of the text, but they did edit out books that didn't agree with their approach to christianity.

Can you prove that? Once again you can't. Rationality and honesty do not go hand in hand with anti-theism. The canonical writings became canonical because they were extremely popular among the early Christians. The councils just recognized what the early Christian church had favored all along.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free," (Luke 4:18)

The Bible doesn't support the idea that slaves are prisoners, because slaves are property. And prisoners doesn't equate to slaves.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.......
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/01/08/police-officer-shot-multiple-times-in-west-philly/

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Authorities say a Philadelphia police officer is recovering after he was shot several times during an ambush late Thursday night in West Philadelphia.
Philadelphia police commissioner Richard Ross says the officer, identified as 33-year-old Jesse Hartnett, was sitting in his patrol car around 11:30 p.m. at 60th and Spruce Streets when a gunman fired nearly a dozen shots through the driver’s side of the car.

Commissioner Ross says the suspect has given a full confession, saying he did it in the name of Islam.
“According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”
kSources say the suspect’s full confession of the alleged attack was written down and recorded on video.

Such things affect elections in troublesome ways.

 

[McBell]

Can you prove that? Once again you can't. Rationality and honesty do not go hand in hand with anti-theism. The canonical writings became canonical because they were extremely popular among the early Christians. The councils just recognized what the early Christian church had favored all along.

:rotflmao:

Can you prove that?
Once again you can't.
Rationality and honesty do not go hand in hand with theism....

Interesting that you did not refute what was said.
In fact, it looks like you merely reworded it.
Perhaps if you were not trying so hard to be insulting, you might have caught that?

 

[metis]

Do you realize that you have absolutely nothing to prove what you are saying? I mean that all these conjectures are profitable for Biblical scholars, many of whom are atheists, since it if extremely difficult to say anything new in the field of Biblical studies. Hence, they come up with the most absurd hypothesis just to say something original. They have no proof to support their conjectures, but they still publish them because by publishing papers on these things they advance their careers. Other scholars support them in their endeavors because they are all in the same boat.

There is almost nothing that can be "proven" in this arena, plus I mentioned the fact that these theologians have "hypothesized" as such. How could you possibly know that what they hypothesize is "absurd"? Just because you may not like what they theorize, does that alone make it "absurd"?

 

[Underhill]

Where do you get your info? The Gospels are dated as follows: Matthew (50-70 AD), Mark (55 to 70 AD), John (80-90 AD), Luke (before 62 AD) Acts (62 AD). Paul's letter date from the 50's and 60's. The apocryphal gospels started to appear in the second century (with the exception of the Gospel of the Hebrews) and were never popular among the members of the early church, who, on the other hand, placed great trust on the canonical Gospels. The tradition of the Early church strongly links the canonical gospels to their apostolic authors (Matthew, Luke, Mark and John). Regarding me finding something for you, I don't need to prove anything to you. You are the one who are making unsupported wild claims about the Bible because you read some anti-Christian webpage and you believed in it as if it were the word of God. You are the one who has to prove what he is saying. Also, you claim that the church persecuted those who upheld the beliefs contained in the apocryphal gospels. Can you prove this? Of course you can't. Furthermore, the early church was being heavily persecuted by the Roman authorities. The early church had absolutely no power to persecute anyone.

We are talking about religion bucko. There is no proving any of it.

First you ask where I get my info, then you post dates that fall almost exactly in the ranges I laid out. I was off by 10 years for 2 of the gospels.

As for who wrote the gospels, many of the non canon gospels were written by the same people. So that argument goes out the window.

Book burning happened, as did persecution. For example, look into Arian and his followers after the council of Nicaea. They were exiled and their books burned. Bishop Athanasius also ordered all "unacceptable" writings burned. Priscillian was also killed for his beliefs which, it is thought, came from other works that were destroyed after the Council of Zaragoza. Look it up.

I'm not sure which early church you are talking about.. I am talking about the church of 3-500AD, but the writings were from much earlier. How much earlier nobody is sure as most copies were, again, destroyed. The earliest copies known date to early in the second century as I said earlier.