| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe a little too religious for some...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:54:38 -0800 (PST), Roger Pearse
wrote: On Dec 26, 9:18*am, Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 25, 1:14?pm, Roger Pearse wrote: On 21 Dec, 22:07, Gene Kearns wrote: I think Larry is trying to get you to look at the source of the Bible. Have you ever considered the testaments that *weren't* included in the Bible? The Catholics decided, in the 4th century, what you should believe and.... by a show of hands .....decided what should be considered holy and what should be considered anathema. If one was politically correct one's motion(dogma) carried, if not it didn't. The true word was created! So it says in the "Da Vinci code". ?Must be true, I suppose? Of course it's complete nonsense. I first graduated from a college affiliated with a particular Christian denomination. We were required to study religion and I found studying both sides of a central point in time established by the Councils ofNiceato be an amazing trip. This led me to the conclusion that anybody that feels that they are Christian should do at least two things: 1) Read the Bible.... ALL OF IT..... and 2) Study the history of the creation of Christianity.... Agree or disagree with what you like..... but you owe it to yourself to be an informed consumer.... So why didn't you learn about the subject before you posted such arrant tripe? While the council didn't specifically canonize the modern Bible, Constantine did order at essentially *that same time 50 copies of the "approved" religious texts for use in the churches of Constantinople. It would be a curious leap to assert that when you or I buy a bible we determine its contents! Constantine did order 50 copies of the bible from the famous scriptorium at Caesarea (and doubtless from other scriptoria also) in order to supply them to his new city in Constantinople. Modern scholars disagree whether those approved scriptures included nearly all of the current "New Testament" or merely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John- References are required for this curious assertion, you know. Since fourth century codices could contain the complete NT, we may reasonably suppose that they did. The term 'New Testament' was already two centuries old by then. but there is no thought that any books not included in a modern Bible were made available to the churches in Constantinople. Well, perhaps; but not necessarily. In the manuscript era books can contain all sorts of things written on spare pages, or considered useful. It is a mistake to imagine that a manuscript of the bible necessarily contains only canonical materials. Every manuscript is unique. Some of the 4th century codices contain material from the apostolic fathers. The council atNiceadid order the burning of books representing minority viewpoints regarding whether God was of a triune nature, etc. Actually it did not. It had no power to do anything of the kind, not being a state body. Constantine issued an order that the books of Arius be burned -- Arius being Trinitarian, of course, although Arian -- but there is no evidence that they were, and Arius himself returned from exile soon after. At least one major priest was kicked out of the church for "wrong thinking". This is vague. Who? This seems to insinuate that for an organisation based on ideological principle to require its leaders to subscribe to those principles is immoral. Are you really enthusiastic for insincerity? If we must have priests, let the buggers be honest. Nevertheless, as Gene said by the end of the 4th Century the Church had convened a series of committe meetings to discuss and debate which books should be included in the official Bible, and things decided then are still in effect today. This is misleading, tho. The process of closing the canon was in no way so arbitrary, and there is no record of such "committee meetings". Please produce ancient evidence for your assertion, if you propose to disagree. In addition toNicea,there were councils convened at Laodicea and Carthage that addressed canonization. No, these councils were convened for other purposes, but lists of books are issued among the canons of the councils. This practise was mainly to ensure that fake texts were not read in church. (The composition of such fakes has been a hobby of heretics up to our own day). A number of false assumptions prevailed at these councils, including the common belief that books we now know did not exist prior to 150-180 AD were "apostolic" writings, (authored by men who had traveled with Jesus). Which books might these be, that did not exist at that absurdly late date, and what evidence can be produced for this daft idea? ~~ snerk ~~ |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Why is there Religious Junk on a Toyota Newsgroup ?? | General | |||
| Why is there Religious Junk on a Toyota Newsgroup ?? | General | |||
| (OT) "We are in a religious war" | General | |||
Threaded Mode
