If you say the church changed the bible, what EXACTLY did they change? They get the bible in english by translating the Torah from hebrew, and the early christian writings from greek/aramaic. So, what did the church do?!?! Did they CROSS OUT a word in a 2000-yr old parchment and write something in it's place? Did they falsely translate a word because of their church's views? 1) The original bible manuscripts have been untampered with, they are still in the same conditions that they have been in since writing. 2) If the church did indeed falsely write something, wouldn't another translation of the texts that was not commisioned by the church say somthing different? Yes. Have there been any instances where this has occured? Nope! The only disagreements between independant translations are words like "verily" and "truly", etc, mainly because of the time period they were translated in. 3) The translators of the bible were experts on the text, as well as experts in the language of the bible. They knew that God warned them: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book (Revelations 22:18-19). The people who translated the bible, like Martin Luther and John Hus and others, were very devout christians who (almost certainly) knew this warning from God. They didn't go around doing whatever they wanted with God's Word, they feared God. 4) As well, ever heard of the dead sea scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library? Those are two examples of recent discoveries of scripts that support the same things the bible says.
The Counsil of Nicea is a well documented event. In 364 (I think) the church leaders at the time went to Nicea (an island in Greek) and decided what the teachings of Christianity should be. Until then they were very mixed: many believed Jesus to be a great guy but not God incarnate; maybe Christian philosophical systems looked more like Hinduism (including the belief in reincarnation); etc; etc. At the counsil of Nicea they ironed out a lot of these very conflicting systems and centralised the faith a bit more. It was here that they decided on what was "holy" enough to be included in the Bible (remember the Bible is not a single text but a collection of texts) and what wasn't (e.g. Gospel of Thomas didn't make it). I am not going to speculate whether this was the only editing they did or not. I hope this clears things up. Sebbi
Ah yes but the whole thing you talked about, there was no changing of texts. The people chatted about the faith and centralized it, they selected books to make the bible but they didnt edit the books themselves. They all kind-of picked and chose what they wanted out of the scriptures and formed their own beliefs. The Council at Nicea tried rather to make a fully scripture-based religion instead of pick-and-choose christianity. Reincarnation, for example, is never found in the bible.
As I said I'm not going to speculate on whether or not they edited to the hinted at extent. They certainly chose how they wanted the translations to look like so I guess that could count. It is a very unresolved subject and no-one really knows and I don't think we ever will. I think it's very likely that they did do a lot of editing but they might not have. Reincarnation is hinted at in the Bible - I forget where exactly but I've seen convincing arguements that it was including referances. I'm not sure I'm convinced personally but I can see how others could draw from it. Also death and resurrection could be interpreted as a metaphor for reincarnation. Besides remember during the times that reincarnation was a common Christian belief there was no Bible, just a whole bunch of texts. Blessings Sebbi
Many of Paul's letters are either not written by him or have had additions from other people. I also know that some of the extra-biblical writings (histories) were often faked, including all the ones that supposedly support Jesus' existance. All those early documents that were "lost"? I bet the Church either burned them or has them locked away in the Vatican, because they would expose the changes they made in the documents they put in the bible. Remember, the Chruch burned/destroyed LOTS AND LOTS of "heretical" Christian writings. And many popes and churchmen are quoted as saying it's ok to lie for the church, and that the lies have made them very rich.
What you're clearly saying is that: A.They didn't edit the books that were included. B.They didn't include some books. Those books not included might have had information about a number of subjects, including reincarnation. If the discarded boks did have this information, what was the motive of the Council for not including them?
Does anyone have any documentation that states that Nicaea actually chose the books of the Bible? To the best of my knowledge, only two things came out of the coucil (which, by the way, was formed to deal with the Arian heresy): 1) the Nicene creed 2) the canons Here is the creed: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes. and a summary of the canons: # Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence. # Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault. # Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt. # Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections. # Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate. # Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction. # Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours. # Canon 8: concerns the Novatians. # Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation. # Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known. # Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius. # Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians. # Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death. # Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution. # Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another. # Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese. # Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest. # Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests. # Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church. # Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing. None of that deals with the books of scripture. I welcome documentation that shows that the canon of scripture was discussed and chosen at Nicaea, but I really don't think you will find it. Until we have some documentation, please stop indicating that the books of the Bible were chosen at Nicaea. For more information on the subject of the New Testament Canon, check out http://www.ntcanon.org/
I researched what you said about "Virgin" and "Young Woman." After looking, I found that the word in hebrew (ha'almah) can mean "young woman" or "maiden". What's a maiden? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maiden A virgin.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus's name would be "Jesus" And for that, btw, the Jews use "Y" as "J" in Hebrew. Jerusalem = Yerushalaim, Jacob = Yaqob etc. Jesus's name in Hebrew was "Yeshua"... I'm not going to get into the whole "sh" thing in this post, maybe later, but the meaning of the two names is EXACTLY the same even if they are not spelled so: they both mean 'God is my salvation'.
technically, us Anglophones should refer to Jesus Christ [Christ a varryation off the Greek Christos which has the same meaning as the Hewbrew Messiah] as Joshua the Annointed...
Religion can be very harmful, many of the problems I have encountered in my life came from religion. Yet I can tell the difference between faith in Christ, and man made religions. I believe the Devil thrives on religions. Yet faith in Christ in it's pure sense, is the best thing that has ever happen to me in my life. It's just a shame, that so many religions often because of their man made rules, spoil mans relationship with God.
Erise, Part of the problem is that language cannot convey original meaning and intent. What one reads may not be what was meant. That is where language breaks down. Many times context is ignored or misplaced. So a sentence in one place will not mean the same thing when the exact same words are said somewhere else. This may represent a contradiction, but in reality it isn't. If I say that there are intentional mistakes in the Bible, nay, in all Scripture, you'll think me insane. Even when I read the Dhammapada I can see where words are being mis-translated. The easiest word to see being mis-translated is "meditation." Supposedly one of the intentional corruptions was how Mary Magdalene was portrayed. (Portrayed, protrait, picture). That may have been the fault of Peter which didn't look too favourably on women, as did Paul. So the Scriptures may be seen as male-centric. It is only through the loving spirit of Woman that religion exists; men would rather just war. Men are objective and women are subjective (very generally speaking in the broadest terms. Making oneself a eunuch meant that one turned away from his aggressive and objective manner and way of being to being more receptive, understanding and accepting). The mind latches onto ideas and won't let go. So when the scriptures say, "pray like this," it repeats the words without understanding the intent, the emotions, the hidden meanings. The words, "Our Father which art in Heaven" are not mere words to be pondered. So if it is renedered, "Our Father that art in Heaven," the onus becomes objective instead of subjective. Such is the failure of language. "Which" is subjective, one has to feel it inside. If you read "Give us this day our daily bread," the original may have said or meant, "Give us this day our daily mana," for example. Bread did not mean physical bread but spiritual bread, peace of spirit, life which sustains us and makes living bearable via the spirit. But if you read the words literally it will just mean mere words.
Comparing the dhammapada to the bible is apples to oranges. I remember seeing the same thing with the tao te ching and the dhammapada. Languages like pali (and chinese) which have little phrases with 6 words maximum are very vague. That kind of writing does NOT exist in the bible.
