Tell me....do you think it is possible...

I guess it all depends on how much info you come to the table with. If someone other than me wrote the same thing I would probably accept it instantly too. Not because I am naive, because my search has brought me to the same conclusions....

 

It certainly wasn't 'The Romans'. The authors names appear in their accounts. One of them was a Roman Citizen. The others Jews.

Im not sure what (if anything) you have against Papyrus scrolls?
They last a lot longer than our modern paper books and look a lot 'cooler' imo

Do you understand that this is a solution not a problem.
There are hundreds of languages on earth and more dialects - and these change over the centuries.
Bible publishers have addressed this appropriately.

If you suggesting there are hundreds of 'versions' of .. lets say Job or maybe St.Johns Apocalypse then I disagree with you and ask you to clarify what you mean by 'Versions'?

We do not have any original manuscripts for any book found in the bible.
[There are some portions of scripture theorised to have been written somewhere during the lifetime of some writers.]
This is not a problem because thankfully many many copies were made.

This is simply not true. I do not know who told you this. Maybe you should ask them to supply some evidence i.e. A copy of these alleged stories and outcomes?

There were probably hundreds of thousands of books in existence. Why would they all be included with the accounts and teachings of the Disciples?

Not sure if you are referring to the Gnostic 'Gospel of Mary' but as a rule non-Christian books would probably not be included in the Bible.
The Christians were 'funny' about that.

Its not likely the FICTIONAL book 'The DaVinci Code' will be included in future Bibles either.

It was 'compiled' by the numerous Churches in Asia minor and the Roman Empire who recieved these accounts and epistles via the Disciples (the guys hand-picked by Jesus to record his life and teachings)

It was not 'edited' to anyones knowledge, however you may imagine that happened if you like.

It did not need to be translated into one language but it was helpful that Greek Only and Latin Only copies were made.
Translation is not some 'bad problem'.
[Bilingual, multilingual people you know are not 'all confused' when they have to translate thoughts into the other language.]

This is nonsense.
The Old Testament was already longggg complete by the Jews.
The New Testament Gospels and Epistles were already spread all over the known world of that time.

In case you hadnt noticed - The only reason you know anything about the Councils is because they meticulously recorded their meetings (centuries after the Gospels had spread around the world)
Do you know why they were meeting?

Because they were making a consensus on the Bible.
NOTE: This is only possible when there is ALREADY a Bible to agree on in the first place.
Council members AGREED that the Gnostic Gospels were not part of the Bible.
Whats your problem with this?

Assuming that they were willing to convert to Christianity but were really liars who all conspired to be Anti-Christian - then they would have an incentive AND be the stupidest humans on the face of the Earth.. and I will explain why.

By the time Roman Authorities began to accept Christianity - The various (or whole) series of Gospels and Epistles had looooong since been copied and kept in Churches at far-flung reaches of the Empire (and outside).

Introducing a fake-bible would have lasted about 3 days before they were caught out by every corner of Christendom.

Creating a New fake Bible would be as stupid as the White House re-writing a fake version of an Oprah book and thinking no one would notice.

Getting back to the assumption that masses of Roman elitists and authorites were faking Christian conversions (and doing an Academy award winning job I might add)...

.. Then the giant conspiracy of Liars would have been sure to ommit all the accounts of Roman injustice, weakness and tyrannical, highly unpopular mis-rule.
Wierdly - your 'Mass conspiracy' of Roman Liars did NOT edit, fabricate or ommit these details?

While there is no evidence for your theory anyway - It seems that even if if they did write a fake Bible they failed in aces!
They also forgot to 'edit' or 'ommit' passages which ultimately dismantled their slavery system.

It included a vast Pagan majority. Rome was 'Pagan'. Jews barely showed up on the radar and Christians were not really 'a threat' other than spreading like wild-fire across the Empire.

Rome was declining.

Guess what - They already had that.
You may have heard of Diana and Co.
It was a well perfected Religion that was tailor made for Rome.

Christianity did not acknowledge Caesar as anyone but a man.. and a very fallible sinful man.
Christianity had very little good to say about Romans and encouraged people to live free from the law.

There is no need to 'borrow' from Judaism and Christianity since one is from the other.
Paganism has very little in common with Christianity.

Again, you are simply imagining this might have happened.

No. History does not suggest it did.
You are suggesting it did for no particular reason other than suspicion based on possible motivations which you imagine were carried out with no consequence or accountability.

There are hundreds of scriptures (or portions/pages) which pre-date Romes 'Official' conversion to Christianity.

There 'may' be original copies preserved somewhere but you would not need Rome to destroy them. Time can do that on its own.

There is some dodgy evidence that the library at Alexandria was burned down by 'Then Converted' Rome.
Otherwise, the Roman 'Liar conspiracy' did a lousy job because many excellent manuscripts have been found throughout the world.

I do not know about these 'truth seeker' were and when their communities were slaughtered?

Let me get this straight - YOU question the motives of the Council at Nicea.. which is your 'reason for' questioning the motives for the Council at Nicea?

 

Most of what is now contained within "The New Testament" can trace its roots to the first century writings of early Christians. Since no manuscripts from that time survive, however, it is impossible to be sure how accurate our current versions of these writings actually are. One thing that is clear, however, is that there were arguments over the "true" interpretation of Christianity from its very beginnings. "Gnosticism" existed in the first century and the New Testament letters attributed to Paul are clear evidence of disagreement in doctrine amongst early Christianity.

The first to name the "four Gospels" was Irenaeus in c. 185 CE. Irenaeus makes some interesting claims about the authorship and number of the Gospels:
"Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple - the one who lay on his lap - also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor..."
In short the four gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but copies (translations if you will) of the same material.

By the third Century, the four Gospels were well grounded. Tertullian, writing c. 206-223, shows that their authenticity was still in question:
"...that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people... The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage - I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew - whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul."

In case that there are any doubts as to the acceptance of the Gospels as, well, Gospel, one need only turn to the pagan Porphyry, who wrote c. 280:
"the evangelists were inventors... not historians". Porphyry's works were banned and no copies survive... the only text we have from him is from christian rebuttles.

The Bible as it comes down to us is commonly said to have been put into its near-present form by the The First Council of Nicaea, held in 325 CE - and it is well-established that several parts of the New Testament were not in their current form even at that time. There is even question on this...
"...there appears no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards..."
The First Council of Nicaea was held to condemn the heresy of Arianism (which taught that Christ was not divine) and to issue what is now regarded as the central affirmation of Christianity - the Nicean Creed.

One bizarre account of the Council is commonly quoted by the Theophosists:
"By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination."

In his The Canon of the Bible, Larry A. Taylor writes:
"The earliest exact reference to the `complete' New Testament, as we now know it, was in the year 367 CE, in the Easter Letter by Athanasius. This did not settle the matter. Varying lists continued to be drawn up by different church authorities. Metzger feels that the influence of Jerome and Augustine was the deciding factor in favor of the exact 27 (although Jerome also favored the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas)."

"The list was formally accepted by a council at Rome in 382. Augustine personally campaigned for the same list at councils at Hippo, 393, at Carthage in 397, and at Carthage again in 419. However, none of these councils had effect throughout the Church, even in the Roman Empire; they were local in authority. Similarly, the various ecclesiastical letters had influence, but none had final authority."

My only point here is that an assumption that the bible is a complete work, that it is infallible, or that it is the 'correct' translation and 'correct' version is a leap of faith indeed. The only reason we even suppose this is true is because of Romes influence. Rome was failing, they were looking for anything that could unite their fractured populous. Christianity was doing just that, sot hey adopted it and it is at that point that it became necessary to 'nail down' a bible.

 

From what I remember it was the roman catholics that banned people from owning a bible. This is going back to the reformation days. Printing processes were only just coming on the scene. Before printing came about bibles would of had to be written out in hand usually by monks. And would of been out of reach for most people. This all changed with printing. As bibles became more available to the wider public the reformation started. Most people were uneducated so therefore couldn't read the bible. It was mainly scholars who read the bible. Most notably people like Martin Luthar and Meno Simons which I can recall of the top of my head. Both these people were clergy men in the catholic faith until they read the bible for themselves. They got fed up with things being taught that were not in the bible. They then broke away from the catholic church to form their own protistant church. In these cases Lutharian and Menonite anabaptists. These differences are responsible for the many variations we have in the christian denomonation. The catholics got tough with these protistants and decided to torture them and instill fear in the public by executing these so called heritics. If you owned a bible in those days you were branded a heritic and were delt with like wise.
So how can you tell me that the bible was written to control the masses when it was forbidden to even own one. The catholic church controlled the masses because it had the power. It worked by using peoples fear. It had the inquisition to do its dirty work. This is not far off from Hitler's Nazi party and the Gestapo.
Matt

 

PopThree,
The history of the Councils you cited is more or less pretty much how we understand it.
That particular author is putting his own perspective and that is fine.
What confuses me about your post is the conclusion that you draw from it?

Yes, there were many councils, they were often 'localised' or made up of already established Churches with already established Gospels.

Most important to note: You know about the Arians and the Theosophists, Gnostics BECAUSE the Church Fathers DID record their objections and aims and books they were lobbying to include.

Its almost amusing to see how many people will tell us about Gnostic Gospels, Arians and books not incl in the canon ... which they only know about because The Nicea Council (and others) recorded and acknowledged in the first place!?

Then a 'Cover-up' is suggested based on knowledge and information they have garnered from the accused 'Coverer-uppers'!?

(hehe.. did that make sense lol )

But ya.. Im with you Barefoot,

The Bible is NOT something any dictatorship, tyrant or fascist want the public to start following.
Stalin Knew that. Mao knew that.
Hitler never banned the Bible but he knew that Pastors teaching any of that 'Literalism' needed to go to camp.
Even today, North Korea has a bullet for Bible smugglers, China will crack down on any Church that decides to get a little to 'Evangelical' about things.

If Constantine really was a fraud who was destroying real Christianity and replacing it with an Altered Version for his own benefit - He did a piss-poor job of things if he expected Rome to return to its former glory and aspirations.

You could argue that Constantine saw 'the writing on the wall' and decided to pick up a Christian 'Flag' before it was the majority of Romans anyway - but - then he has very little reason to manipulate anything.
He only needs to 'join' whatever is already happening.

One thing we can all consider after the fact.
The Gnostic Gospels, doctrines of the Arians and about a dozen other books not included in the Bible ARE AVAILABLE now.

There is NOTHING stopping anyone from accepting those as Gospels and including them in their Churches, Bibles and daily reading.

So, any attempts to get rid of them (if such a thing happened) clearly have failed.
Do you see Churches rushing to include them now?
No, because they are mostly shitty works of fiction.
Some read like the worst pulp-fiction hack material you ever saw (Gospel of Thomas for example)

If you want to include crappy or bizarre writings in your Bible - feel free.

 

Let's write our own gospel!

 

Sorry but.. The Mormons beat ya to it

:O

 

"If you want to include crappy or bizarre writings in your Bible - feel free. "

How do you know what is crappy or bizarre? When 40 gospels are submitted to over 300 mostly illiterate bishops under the watchful eye of Constantine it is hard for me to beleive the 'correct' four were chosen. It is especially odd that the four gospels that were chosen may have all been translations of the same work. So, take the four that tell the story you want to hear and throw out the rest?

To be very precisie here i think the misrepresentation of Christianity began with Paul, so I in no way think the Romans single handedly pushes the religion off track. Man has his own objectives and I think Jesus' message was twisted to meat those needs. If you disagree, well Ok, but I have run out of sources.

Jesus' message was simple and if you think that the Holy Roman Catholic Church (ESPECIALLY in the centuries following its formation) was doing a good job of living by and teching that simple message then we will have to agree to disagree. If you don't think that what came out of the church during that period was following the teachings of Jesus then I challenge you to find where it started going wrong. I have done my research and drawn my conclusions...

 

I think that writings like the Bible and Nostradamus etc are fascinating, and are worth looking into and studying from many angles... Although it's hard to say how much of it is 100% factual. You take what you want from it and believe how much of it you want to believe.