I don't understand - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 05-31-2007, 05:49 PM #1
Nature Boyz
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
I don't understand

Here's a question that I asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature Boyz View Post
Did Catholics add 7 books to the Bible or did Protestants take out 7 books in the Bible. I'm talking about 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther?
yet, I get two opposite answers how am I supposed to know which one is right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by X_Paint View Post
The earliest writings of the canon did not have those books in them.

They were added as part of the Westernization of the church.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
Well, see, our beliefs differ in some important areas and thus why I believe in the inerrancy of the bible and you believe the same to be true for the Quran. Just as you believe that Muhammed was the last prophet of God and one who had direct revelation of His Most Holy Word, a belief I myself do not hold, I believe that Christ promised to protect and guide the church through the power of the Holy Spirit into all truth and thus also protect and guide the men who were a part of that church and were discerning which books were the inspired word of God and which were not. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

As far as contradictions go, almost all seeming contradictions can be explained away with proper interpretation and understanding of the text. And the bible did change at a point in time. During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

And no worries. I didn't think you were trolling. I just wanted a little more info about where you were coming from so I could better answer your question...whether from a non-catholic christian, another religious background or even atheistic POV.
Nature Boyz is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 05-31-2007, 06:28 PM #2
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Catholics have it correct.

Here is a little history on who actually was the editor behind the canon of the bible.


The Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 1st Roman Emperor to convert to christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman empire. Until this time christian leaders could not decide what books were "holy" and which were not "inspired" by god.

Constantine offers the church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by christians as the word of god. This group was thus referred to as the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of god" into existence. Now keep in mind the leaders did not finish editing the bible until the Council of Trent when the catholics declared the canon closed. The real biblical approver was not god, but Constantine.

The first christian bible, used still today, was not the work of god but that of a Pagan Emperor trying to save his crumbling empire.
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:06 PM #3
girl from the gym
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
Catholics have it correct.

Here is a little history on who actually was the editor behind the canon of the bible.


The Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 1st Roman Emperor to convert to christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman empire. Until this time christian leaders could not decide what books were "holy" and which were not "inspired" by god.

Constantine offers the church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by christians as the word of god. This group was thus referred to as the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of god" into existence. Now keep in mind the leaders did not finish editing the bible until the Council of Trent when the catholics declared the canon closed. The real biblical approver was not god, but Constantine.

The first christian bible, used still today, was not the work of god but that of a Pagan Emperor trying to save his crumbling empire.
Quite a claim to make. I'm not denying it, but do you have a source?
__________________
**I move away from the mic to breathe in.

"Originally posted by 512: and you are japanese I'm guessing?

go watch some animated tentacle porn."
girl from the gym is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:09 PM #4
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Sorry, but 99% of my sources are from books. Of course this depends on what potion you are asking a source on...

If it is the constantine portion you can easily find it online I am sure...
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:10 PM #5
girl from the gym
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
Sorry, but 99% of my sources are from books. Of course this depends on what potion you are asking a source on...

If it is the constantine portion you can easily find it online I am sure...
Eh, I'll get around to it. Thanks for the tip.
__________________
**I move away from the mic to breathe in.

"Originally posted by 512: and you are japanese I'm guessing?

go watch some animated tentacle porn."
girl from the gym is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:16 PM #6
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
If you find the original canon you should be able to find the books of said canon. The many different sects of christianity, judaism & islam use different abrahamic books. All of them think they are correct. The canonization of the bible was originally put together in an attempt to corral the Roman population into a single group of worship, basically an attempt to gain control of the people again. This is why it was put together originally, not for any holy reasons.
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:38 PM #7
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
contrary to some beliefs, Constantine had little or nothing to do with the actual canon of the Bible. In fact, his conversion may be argued, but it is not provable that he did not convert; and many historians agree that he probably did believe he had that vision/dream and converted to Christianity. it is only some that "recently" argue that it was a political move, mostly (in my opinion) out of convenience for their version of the historical record and dissuasion against anything-religion.

as for the apocryphal books that were added to the Catholic Bible, I understand that happened in the middle 1500's - the Roman Catholic church itself did not officially declare these books Holy Scripture until the Council of Trent.

The Canon had already been established though not consolidated - but was two separate canons - the 39 books at the Jewish Council of Jamnia (based at least partially on the 70-translation of the existing Hebrew texts of the 39 books called the Septuagint from about 250BC/BCE) on about 90AD/CE. The "Christian Canon", of the New Testament had been established or at least listed as such as early as the earliest part of the 2nd century AD/CE.

Though the Pe****ta, the Syriac (Antioch was where Christians were first called "Christians") Bible of the second century did NOT contain the apocryphal books (as they are generically called), the 4th century Syriac church had apparently accepted them.

Augustine apparently acknowledged them in some of his earlier works, but later he was clearly in rejection of them as being outside the canon and inferior to the Hebrew scriptures.

The Armenian version of the Bible (887, earliest manuscripts known), had teh apocryphal books, but it should be noted that there was also many other "non-canon" books included in that "Bible" as well: History of Joseph and Asenath, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; and the New Testament included the Letter (epistle) of the Corinthians to Paul and a Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. There was the book of Adam, History of Moses, the death of the prophets, Concerning King Solomon, short History of the Prophet Elias, and others.

I do not know of any canonic list or council of the Christian church that accepted the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly the first four centuries. I believe that this is very significant, since all of the lists available and most of the fathers of this period omit the Apocrypha.

Early patristic folk of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha; including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome. In fact, he was known to have saidthat the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”.

Most Biblical Scholars agree that at least in part, the confusion over the issue of the apocrypha revolves about the two traditions of the Old Testament canon. The "Palestinian Canon" that contains twenty-two books (in ancient Hebrew manuscripts - thirty-nine books using the same texts in English), and the "Alexandrian Canon" that contained an additional fourteen (+/- 1 or more, depending on what tradition and accounts) books in its collection. The Palestinian Canon is the Hebrew canon that arose in Palestine and was recognized by the Jews.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.

Last edited by RamboPreacher : 05-31-2007 at 08:00 PM.
RamboPreacher is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:10 PM #8
Ari Shaffir (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
If you find the original canon you should be able to find the books of said canon. The many different sects of christianity, judaism & islam use different abrahamic books. All of them think they are correct. The canonization of the bible was originally put together in an attempt to corral the Roman population into a single group of worship, basically an attempt to gain control of the people again. This is why it was put together originally, not for any holy reasons.
What exactly is an abrahamic book?
Ari Shaffir is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:14 PM #9
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Shaffir View Post
What exactly is an abrahamic book?
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:16 PM #10
Ari Shaffir (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
Thanks for the helpful response.
Ari Shaffir is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:17 PM #11
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
his question is valid. please explain further what an Abrahamic book is. I don't recall hearing/reading/learning that phrase.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:19 PM #12
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Shaffir View Post
Thanks for the helpful response.
You are welcome. It refers to the early books of christianity, islam, judaism, ya know...
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:28 PM #13
Ari Shaffir (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
You are welcome. It refers to the early books of christianity, islam, judaism, ya know...

In that case, you are wrong to say that different sects of judaism uses different early books, as they all use the same, Torah. And depending on how early you are referring to, they also all use the books that came later, the nevi'im and ketuvim.
Ari Shaffir is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:28 PM #14
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
You are welcome. It refers to the early books of christianity, islam, judaism, ya know...
sorry, never heard that category before. So, this pigeon hole would contain all books that have any reference to Abraham, in a faith-patristic sense?
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:39 PM #15
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Shaffir View Post
In that case, you are wrong to say that different sects of judaism uses different early books, as they all use the same, Torah. And depending on how early you are referring to, they also all use the books that came later, the nevi'im and ketuvim.
The talmud is still used by all jewish people?

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore : "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

With verses like that? There are different jewish sects, just as there are christian is islamic. Not all sects use all books.
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 05-31-2007, 08:41 PM #16
Ari Shaffir (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
The talmud is still used by all jewish people?

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore : "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

With verses like that? There are different jewish sects, just as there are christian is islamic. Not all sects use all books.


The talmud isn't an early writing, or even considered inspired by god, it is just a commentary, like the catholics "catechism". And I am sure just about every rabbi who is in any Jewish sect besides karaite has a talmud. If you buy a Hebrew bible it will not contain a talmud.

Last edited by Ari Shaffir : 05-31-2007 at 08:43 PM.
Ari Shaffir is offline  
Old 06-03-2007, 07:13 PM #17
Mrb2k 2k7 (Banned)
_________________________
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
Catholics have it correct.

Here is a little history on who actually was the editor behind the canon of the bible.


The Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 1st Roman Emperor to convert to christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman empire. Until this time christian leaders could not decide what books were "holy" and which were not "inspired" by god.

Constantine offers the church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by christians as the word of god. This group was thus referred to as the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of god" into existence. Now keep in mind the leaders did not finish editing the bible until the Council of Trent when the catholics declared the canon closed. The real biblical approver was not god, but Constantine.

The first christian bible, used still today, was not the work of god but that of a Pagan Emperor trying to save his crumbling empire.
That statement is practically completely wrong. A lot of teh books in the bible were the work of God, through other people and his preachers who went around preaching his word. A lot of the OLD TESTAMENT is God's work through other people, but a lot of the NEW TESTAMENT is mostly stories of Jesus, and his crucifixion. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are there own accounts of Jesus' life and death, and a few other books after that are his disciples going on and preaching the word of God to other people. Once again, science historians that don't believe the word of God don't know everything. Even if you don't believe the word of God, you can't say that the word of God wasn't created by him. The bible was all the work of God. Some books were just not as important as others and that's why they weren't included. It's not because they weren't holy.
Mrb2k 2k7 is offline  
Old 06-03-2007, 08:27 PM #18
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb2k 2k7 View Post
That statement is practically completely wrong. A lot of teh books in the bible were the work of God, through other people and his preachers who went around preaching his word. A lot of the OLD TESTAMENT is God's work through other people, but a lot of the NEW TESTAMENT is mostly stories of Jesus, and his crucifixion. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are there own accounts of Jesus' life and death, and a few other books after that are his disciples going on and preaching the word of God to other people. Once again, science historians that don't believe the word of God don't know everything. Even if you don't believe the word of God, you can't say that the word of God wasn't created by him. The bible was all the work of God. Some books were just not as important as others and that's why they weren't included. It's not because they weren't holy.
It is not wrong. Constantine ordered and paid for the counsil to vote on which books were valid and fit together. You may not want to believe this but it does not change the fact that it happened.

There is no evidence on who actually wrote the books of the bible, new or old testament. A lot of your assumptions are just that. You say that the bible was the word of god, if that was the case why did man have to vote on what was "holy" and his word and what was not?
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 06-03-2007, 08:44 PM #19
Mrb2k 2k7 (Banned)
_________________________
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball View Post
It is not wrong. Constantine ordered and paid for the counsil to vote on which books were valid and fit together. You may not want to believe this but it does not change the fact that it happened.

There is no evidence on who actually wrote the books of the bible, new or old testament. A lot of your assumptions are just that. You say that the bible was the word of god, if that was the case why did man have to vote on what was "holy" and his word and what was not?
Maybe those guys did put the bible together, but a lot of the bible was written by a person based on what he was told by God to write. If you read my post, I said most of the new testament is 4 accounts of Jesus' life and death, and a lot of the other few are just stories of Jesus' disciples going around and preaching his word. I never really said they didn't put the bible together, but God was the reason we have the old testament, and like I said about the new testaments. I guess the books that were left out just didn't have the significance that the other ones had.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying, those guys just seperated the books and sorted them out from new and old and put them into the one. They didn't deem jack **** holy, but rather based on importance. Your atheist BS really isn't going to change my beliefs.

*end of rant*
Mrb2k 2k7 is offline  
Old 06-03-2007, 09:04 PM #20
cryptic.paintball
blah blah blah
 
cryptic.paintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Uniontown Pa
cryptic.paintball is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
cryptic.paintball is Legendary
cryptic.paintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb2k 2k7 View Post
Maybe those guys did put the bible together, but a lot of the bible was written by a person based on what he was told by God to write. If you read my post, I said most of the new testament is 4 accounts of Jesus' life and death, and a lot of the other few are just stories of Jesus' disciples going around and preaching his word. I never really said they didn't put the bible together, but God was the reason we have the old testament, and like I said about the new testaments. I guess the books that were left out just didn't have the significance that the other ones had.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying, those guys just seperated the books and sorted them out from new and old and put them into the one. They didn't deem jack **** holy, but rather based on importance. Your atheist BS really isn't going to change my beliefs.

*end of rant*
There is no proof of a all powerful being inspiring anything. If the 4 NT books are so inspired by the life of a mystery man why were they not written until the minimum of 40 to over 100 years after his death?

The books were put together to save a dying empire. Nothing more, nothing less. The inspiration for the bible was to save the Romans and to keep them as unified as possible.
cryptic.paintball is offline  
Old 06-03-2007, 09:06 PM #21
KyPaintBawler (Banned)
**** Off!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fairdale, Ky ~FHS~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb2k 2k7 View Post
Maybe those guys did put the bible together, but a lot of the bible was written by a person based on what he was told by God to write. If you read my post, I said most of the new testament is 4 accounts of Jesus' life and death, and a lot of the other few are just stories of Jesus' disciples going around and preaching his word. I never really said they didn't put the bible together, but God was the reason we have the old testament, and like I said about the new testaments. I guess the books that were left out just didn't have the significance that the other ones had.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying, those guys just seperated the books and sorted them out from new and old and put them into the one. They didn't deem jack **** holy, but rather based on importance. Your atheist BS really isn't going to change my beliefs.

*end of rant*

So some of "Gods Word" wasn't important? Interesting....
KyPaintBawler is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump