Why this Bible?

Worker Joined: Dec 08, 2005 Posts: 107

There is an interesting Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! on the CNN web site about finding pieces of the Gospel of Judas.

I personally find the exciting for two reasons. First, people revile Judas as the person who betrayed Jesus. Without Judas there would have been no crucifiction and no resurrection. Thus the very foundations of Christianity would not exist. For Christianity to exist as it does today, Jesus had to have been "betrayed". Thus, Judas played an essential role. I believe that even the Bible says Jesus knew what was coming.

Another aspect is the fact that the Gospel of Judas not part of the modern New Testament. Without looking, how many of us can say why whe currently have the books in New Testament that we do? When was this decided? In short,it was more or less decided by a single man in the fourth century who wrote a list of the current books and declared all other heretical. Which books he included and even which he did not a core elements of modern Christianity.

To be honest, how many of us know who he was and why he chose the books that he did?

One of the other Gospels that he said was heretical was the Gospel of Thomas. This was particularly hard on the rich. I believe that this was probably removed as to not anger the rich patrons of the church (something still common today). In fact, what I have found seems to indicate that a lot what was removed was done purely for political reasons.

All told, there are at least 50 books/texts that are not included in the modern Bible. The content of which has not simply been passed from translation to translation, but there exists physical copies from the time at which they were removed from the New Testatament (although not called that at the time).

All this not only begs but demands the question "Why this Bible?"

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:39 am

jimmo wrote:

I believe that even the Bible says Jesus knew what was coming."

You "believe" or you KNOW?

Of course Jesus knew what was coming.

KJV - Mathew 17:22 - And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:35 pm

I believe Jesus knew it was coming from Judas.

registered · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:23 pm

I always think of 'The Holy Bible', et al, as a TV set. They come in all different shapes and sizes, and with different features, but they don't do a thing for you until you 'turn them on', so to speak.

I have a whole shelf of Bibles, and I've found that depending on the question[s] I'm asking, each one will give me a different answer. That's why 'they' call it the 'Living Word.' Even the same Bible will give a different answer every time you look at the same passage[s].

For example, the Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, and it was written in an ancient form of Jewish prose -- where nothing rythmes, but instead, everything is repeated twice (stated a slightly different way). In most Bibles, I find it extremely hard to fathom. However, in the Readers Digest Bible version (really) the meaning of the Book of Job (a celestial contest between God and the devil) rings out clear and clear!

So, don't let all these different versions bother you. It's a good thing, not a bad thing!

Remember, man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God... Wink

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:10 am

Very well put.

I am not "bothered", per se, about there being different Bibles. However, I am bothered when someone takes a particular Bible and pounds on a particular word, that is actually translated differently in different Bibles. I cannot think of the context at the moment, but one example is "servant" and "slave", very different meanings *in English'.

My concern here is what are we missing today, by not considering texts that were once part of the bible and that some *man* decided he didn't like for whatever reason. If these words "proceedeth out of the mouth of God" just as much as the other books, then are they not just as valid?

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Once again, Jimmo, I would submit to you that you do further research on how the Canon was selected. You say you find it exciting. Well, in the light of Biblical inspiration, it is not. There was no 'he', as you put it. You are confused as to how the Books of the Bible came to be. Here are some links to help get you started.

http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=685
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1343.htm
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/7.php
http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/canon.htm

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:37 pm

Raven wrote:

Once again, Jimmo, I would submit to you that you do further research on how the Canon was selected. You say you find it exciting...

And, I would submit, this is OFTEN a difficult task!

The Book of Job is my favorite. For some reason, I relate to it on a personal level. Really, it's the story of MY life too, in many ways...

Having said that, here's a condensed dissertation of the difficulties faced when trying to understand 'The Holy Bible', et al:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

I suggest taking a few minutes and reading this web page. It's an excellent example of the task at hand, when ppl start (actually) researching the Bible -- and it may serve to guide you in your pursuit(s).

If nothing else, it will familiarize you with my favorite book... Wink

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:55 pm

Hrm... I was just thinking... Laughing

Just out of curiosity, which 'Bible' version is your favorite, Raven -- your 'carrying Bible', so to speak?

My favorite is a hybrid text version called the 'New King James', aka NKJV.

It incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the 'corruptions', so called, found in other modern Bible versions, but I find it the most palatable, e.g. readable, of all the *new* versions.

I would never rely on it 100%, but it comes in handy at church, for study groups, and so forth...

Regular Joined: Dec 24, 2004 Posts: 56

Christianity is one of the top Companies in the world...i don't remember what there stock price was.. on the New Your Stock Exchange..

But i think it was something like $83.6 a share... last week.

Im a converted Jew.. now "Baptist" no temples here in the south... lol

I feel that religion is just about everything.. and is changed as years go on. There where lots of books left out of the new testament... yea...

Done on purpose.. because if they where supposed to be in there they would be in there... lol

I agree with the other posters... left out for political reasons... they need there kaching!

$.. otherwise they wouldnt be around today...

I've read a few books on the "Lost Gospels" some are crazy.. one even talks of Jesus yelling at his parents when he was 4yo or something...

Another thought......of the 4 books... Matthew Mark Luke & John... only 2 are deciphles... the other 2 are saints i think... they replaced 2 other deciples books. Dont know who they where.. just know enough to make references to ideas.

nice discussion by the way...

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:46 pm

link wrote:

Im a converted Jew...

I have many Jewish friends. My best friend in high school was a Jew. I used to get a kick out of going to his (Jewish) friends' houses. Many times, the mother would meet us at the door, like a bouncer, and not let me in, because after a little 'small talk', they knew I wasn't a Jew. They'd send their kid outside instead. LoL! Didn't bother me -- that's just the way it was -- trying to protect their domicile or whatever.

I've also known a few converted, or 'completed' Jews -- Jews that also believe in Christ. Personally, other than a few quirks, I think Jews and Christians are very similar and highly compatible.

The only thing that bothers me about 'organized religion', if you will, is they're all priesthoods, and I tend to have a problem with authority of all types. However, that's a personal problem -- a psychological problem -- not their fault[s].

Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll stop...

Welcome to the discussion! Wink

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:51 pm

Hahaha.. they wouldn't let you in... wow thats strict... Smile

I don't much like authority either... and yes i agree... the simalarities between the 2 religions are emense. Thats why we always here people talking about the foundations of Judeo-Christian societies...

religion is excelent... God Bless... Smile

Nice to see some intellegent / religious / programa-holics .. lol

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:21 pm

VinDSL wrote:

I've also known a few converted, or 'completed' Jews -- Jews that also believe in Christ. Personally, other than a few quirks, I think Jews and Christians are very similar and highly compatible.

a few quirks?

I would call NOT BELIEVING THAT JESUS WAS/IS THE SAVIOR more than a quirk.

other than that...maybe..uh yeah.

Also, as for Religion being "excellent" as link said, I have to disagree. Isn't religion man-made? If it is not then, where is the word Catholic in the bible, or Presbyterian or Methodist or Jehovas Witness? Religions are all man made by men who could not agree on truth and "interpretation". Or am I wrong?

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:07 pm

Wow.... ill get outta hear and let you go back to your cult... Jesus preached tolerance... so learn some hitler.... Laughing

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:31 pm

link wrote:

Wow.... ill get outta hear and let you go back to your cult... Jesus preached tolerance... so learn some hitler.... Laughing

I'm sorry I did not mean to chase you off by my so-called "cult" comments...Jesus preached forgiveness, tolerance? When he told Satan to get behind him, do you think for a second he was "tolerant" of Satan?

I was only stating a fact. That religion is man made. I am a FIRM beleiver in Christ as my savior, however that does not mean I am "affiliated" with any certain religion made by man. I simply beleive that Christ died for me and that the word of God is truth. I don't need a "priest" or "pastor" or any other religious figures to tell me the same or otherwise(do you?).

No religion can guarantee salvation(is that an untrue statement?). Salvation is between each and every one of us and GOD, period. No pastor of priest or so-called saint can get me into heaven.,..do you know who can?... JESUS CHRIST can!

All these "people" that get wrapped up in these various religions(for prestige or recognition or for whatever reason) are simply getting lost along the way. It's all biblical...does anyone else understand this? We only need to be BELEIVERS...and by that I mean BELIEVERS!!!!!!!

It breaks my heart as I'm sure God is sadened or at least sorry(if he were in the human form again) for all that will be lost at the last day. But, I know that it is his purpose and plan and I can do nothing more that pray for the lost and hope and have faith that more will be saved by any witnessing I can give to others.

Again, I am sorry if my remark if it offended or even made you feel at all uncomfortable, however, in the name of Jesus Christ I stand behind my remarks!

P.S. Link, do you know that the Jews TODAY and from the time of Chirst, do not believe that Jesus Christ was God in the Flesh and our savior? Maybe Vin can verify that with his past experience with a Jewish friend or can he?

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:41 am

myrtletrees wrote:

I was only stating a fact. That religion is man made.

Wonderful!!!

So often people get hung up und the misguided belief that faith=religion. Although I believe in Jesus and the Bible, I do not believe many of the things specific religions teach.

regards,

jimmo

PS. I am still working on my response to the links Raven posted. A couple were major disappointments.

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:06 am

Raven wrote:

Once again, Jimmo, I would submit to you that you do further research on how the Canon was selected. You say you find it exciting. Well, in the light of Biblical inspiration, it is not. There was no 'he', as you put it. You are confused as to how the Books of the Bible came to be.

Unfortunately, if you had done a little deeper research into the subject, you would have found there was a "he", as I put it. This was Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and even one of the web sites you pointed me toward discusses him as the first person to have defined the current New Testament which exactly the same books we have today. This list was published in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter (367 AD), which was then "approved" by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD.

Even if there were other written records, he was the force that made the changes. In his writing, he said "In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness", so he is obviously making a personal value judgement on the other books. Further it was Bishop Athanasius that had the list ratified by the Church councils of Hippo and Carthage. He was *the* power in the region at the time and was not only the driving force behind *destroying* works his group didn't want, but also *persecuting* people who still believed in the validity (i.e. divinity) of the other books. So, despite the fact that there were other churches/groups that believed in a different New Testament than what we currently have, it was Athanasius' acts that were fundamental in defining what is the current canon. Arguing over whether or not he made the decision is simply by himself simply being overly pedantic. He was the power that *forced* the current canon upon people. Does that help to clear up your confusion? Wink

By prohibiting and burning any other writings, Athanasius' eventually gave the impression that this Bible was the only original Christian view. The burning of the great library of Alexandria in 387 AD was a direct result of the Bishop Athanasius' influence. Athanasius was the "he".

Independant of whether it was just one man or a group of men, the fact is, it was a decision by men, who agreed upon a set list of books. Considering how many different canons there have been and the fact is we are talking about men, it is unlikely that everyone at any of these councils, synods and so forth were always 100% in agreement as to which books. They came to a consensus about which to include.

Unfortunately, the sites you pointed me to do an awful lot of handwaving and often use the current Bible itself as proof that the current Bible is the way it is supposed to be. Of course the current Bible is going to say it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is logical, even natural, that those who wanted to keep specific things and remove others would do their best to include statements saying it is the absolute truth and that you are wrong for adding anything. However, as we have already established, the Bible was not written by God but *inspired* by God. This is a very important (read: crucial) difference.

In order to keep things simple, let's stick with the New Testament. If you look at the anabaptists.org it said:

"In the case of the New Testament the fixing of the Canon was done mainly at the council at Carthage in 387 A.D., although the evidence points to the selection of the books as early as about the year 100 A.D."

First, there is the term "mainly". When where the "rest" decided upon? Which were the one decided upon then and which later? Why did these one gets chose and not others? Obviously other places answers these questions, but this is an example of the frequent hand waving and vague comments.

As the site says "The answer in brief is that the selection was made by the spiritual consciousness of godly people." However, as previously mentioned, it seems that some books were removed for political reasons, which does not fit "the spiritual consciousness of godly people." Also, accepting the current canon also requires you to accept the "godliness" of the people who made these decisions. Since most Christians do not know who made these decisions, they are trusting the "godliness" of people they don't even know about. To me, that is *blind* faith and not a good thing.

Also, the fact that someone is "godly" doesn't mean they are right. Not wanting to pound on him, but I would consider Pat Robertson as "godly". However, he sanctions sin (i.e. murder) for political reasons and thus I would definately not listen to him to terms of what things should be included in the Bible and what should not.

Also at the bottom of the page on the anabaptists.org site it says "By about A.D. 100, all 27 books of the New Testament had been written" and then goes on to say "By the end of the second century, and possibly by A.D. 125 or even earlier, most Christians had accepted the books of the New Testament as the Word of God."

Seems to me the author is saying that by the end of the second century, the current 27 canonical books were defined. This is in direct contradiction to the pastornet.net.au site and the historical record, which says it didn't happen until the fourth century (or later). Even if "By the end of the second century" the canon *for some people* was the same as today, the statement that "most Christians accepted the books of the New Testament as the Word of God" is problematic. "Most" is not all and as the historical record shows, the fact is that what these "most Christians accepted" at that time was not the same canon as today. Further, so far I have found nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I found was that at that time most Christians were *not* in agreement. Instead, the current list was forced upon then by Athanasius.

I also found aspects of traditional propoganda/psychologial warfare techniques on the biblebb.com. With that I am not necessarily saying that they are trying to "trick" us, but I lost confidence fairly quickly that they were trying to present information in an honest and objective fashion.

For example, they use statements, which are probably true in a few specific cases, but they then use those cases as the rule or the foundation of their arguments. For example, the paragraph that starts "Some believe the Bible to be as inspired as Homer's Odyssey, ...". Who are these "some people"? (Using terms like "some people" is a very common technique.) Granted there are probably "some people" who think that, but the author does nothing to say who they are or what real significance they have in this debate. If it is some "new age" philosophy professor at some unknown community college in California, does this have any real value in this discussion?

Further, biblebb.com uses the technique where it more or less presents (read: defines) something without any support as "invalid" and then simply asks does "this really make sense?":

"However, would smart men write a book that condemned them? Would smart men write a book that places salvation beyond their own ability? Could even smart men create a personality such as Jesus Christ who was the perfect manifestation of purity, love, and righteousness? It is the tendency of man to exalt himself, not write books to d*** himself. "

This starts off with the (more or less hidden) conclusion that a man/men would not write what is in the Bible that way it was written and therefore it "must be divinely inspired". (Granted the author did not say it exactly like this, but it is pretty obvious that is his message).

Yes, it is the "tendency" of man to behave like that. However, not all men behave like that. If Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are not divinely inspired, but are simply the works of "smart men" then *yes* we have some very definite, specific examples where "smart men write a book that condemned them", "smart men write a book that places salvation beyond their own ability", etc. (Although one could say that in Buddhism "salvation" is within their ability.)

So the author is contradicted by reality. Using the author's arguments, then the men who selected the canonical books of the Bible also had the same failings and thus chose books that were in their own interest, or even went so far as to change the meaning for their own (political) purposes. Later, the author says "Yet, He arranged their lives, thoughts, and vocabularies in such a manner that His revelation was recorded precisely."

As we have discussed in previous threads, this is not true. I am not trying to pick nits, but if "His revelation was recorded precisely" why are there some very obvious and yet very simple mistakes? If God "arranged their lives, thoughts" why were they not arranged in such a way as to not make these simply mistakes? Why didn't God start off by avoiding this problem and not including the mistakes? Quite simply because the Bible was written down by men based on their own **personal** impretation of that divine inspiration. Which is also the same reason they chose specific books: their *own* interpretation.

Further it is a common technique in propoganda/psychological warfare to simply state that what you are saying is the truth. The "evidence" is then proof of itself. Naturally humans who want to convince others that what they say is the truth are going to include statements to that effect. So, in the end the author has proven nothing. If you already believe what the author is saying then it appears to be convincing arguments, but really isn't when you look at it objectively.

Another technique is to draw false conclusions and call them facts: "Since Revelation is the last book of the Bible, if we are to add to Scripture we must add to Revelation--and that is exactly what John says is forbidden."

Adding an additional gospel, for example, does not imply an addition to Revelation. Further, what this author obviously missed was the fact that books *were* added and removed, many times over in fact. The current list as defined by Athanasius was not the first. The current Bible is made up of books that were added or deleted. So by the author's definition, the current Bible is false.

Although the author does mention the fact that the warning in Revelation applies specifically to Revelation ("If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."), he says 'The phrase "this book," while it refers specifically to Revelation, carries the sense of that verse beyond the twenty-two chapters of this book.'

The problem here are the other translations. For example, from the New International Version:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book..."

Here it is specifically refering to the prophecy. This is also how it is translated in many other Bibles. I might add that I looked through about 10 different translation (including non-English translations) and each included the word "prophecy". So, any assertion that this passage refers to the Bible as a whole is not supported by the Bible itself (New Living Translation says "prophetic words of this book", but that doesn't really change things.)

The ibs.org site is so vague as to why these books were chosen as to be completely meaningless. At the very most it is simply another example of "The bible says that it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", so it must be.

I did find that pastornet.net.au did a good job of explaining the historical background in choosing the current canon. Regrettable it did not mentioned the persecution of people who did not yeild to the powers that be at the time. It also says that even as late as the 5th centuy AD, there was still differences of **opinion** as to which books were canonical. So, here it is, hundreds of years after the books were written, and people are still not unified to which were "inspired by God" and which not. Further, in the preceeding several centuries there were many, many different sets of books that were defined as canonical. Also the Gospel of Thomas seems to fit "Apostle", "Witness", and "Tradition". So other than certain people not liking it either stylistically or for political reasons, there is nothing saying why it should not be included, but it isn't.

I did catch the comment "Athanasius was no innovator. He simply set his seal on what the Church had been doing for a long time." Although it is unclear what it was the Church "had been doing" it seems to indicate that we was simply repeating what was *decided* elsewhere. Still, it does not alter the fact that he ordered the persecution of "non-believers" and buring of "heretical" texted.

You will frequently find in those commentaries words like "accepted", "decided", "defined", and so forth. They all say the same thing that men made the decision which books where to be included. So, over 1500 years later we are trusting the decision of these men. Men defined which books belong. This happened sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Many of the decisions where made because of the belief that they were not actually writen by the person to whom they were attributed, inconsistancies between various other books, and so forth, but that also applies to books that *were* included.

"Most Christians" today have absolutely no clue as to why these books are included other than what their pastor/priest has told them. Even those that are aware of historical changes, most do not know who made what decisions nor why. Even fewer have bothered to compare the current canon with these other books. Why do these men have more validity, for example, than the current Pope? To me, most Christians *blindly* accept the current canon. I say that is wrong as their pastor is not going to judge them in heaven and they won't be able to use what their pastor said as an excuse.

Today we still have the differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Which is correct? There are differences in translations. Which is correct? There are many, many difference in the interpretations of specific passages and thus there are so many different Protestant denominations. Which one is correct?

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 pm

I wonder why so many bibles if there is only one Lord. Men created and change the bible for many reasons. If you search there are many different bibles with differents thoughts. Example: Why women are not allow to enter to a barbershop where talibans(men) are? Does the biblie has this issue? No, there are many examples about this. This is just one of them.

registered · Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:17 am

If you are Christian Jesus left a very simple way to live, that is a life of no hate, no judging and believing in him! why bother with so much irrelevant detail? man creates rules and prejudices and religion to what is beneficial to them, such as priest in the catholic church not marrying, a new religion branching off due to a crazy King in UK, and you name it, it's endless. When I see people taking so much time to read the bible and understanding every detail. I say to myself do they need it so much because of lack in faith? they have to keep drilling their brain with the gospel. I'd like to ask a interesting question. Who do you think Jesus would be more pleased with, someone who spent all their time reading about the bible or some one whom actually practiced some of the good will mentioned in the bible, like helping the poor, visiting the sick, imprisoned, etc etc. I mean who has time for the bible... lols
Nice topic Smile

thanks for sharing.

jc

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:49 am

jimmo wrote:

All this not only begs but demands the question "Why this Bible?"

Because it's a good book?
I've read it and also an older book about Taoism.
They are both good.