Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Praise

What if it's true?

Dec 24, 2014 9:16PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Remember the bible was put together at the council of Nicea
Dec 25, 2014 8:33AM PST

Every other book was considered apostate. The monks were told to destroy them. Some couldn't so they buried them and we are locating some of those and others in other places in the Middle East. Some are significant and others not so much.

Try to convince any atheist that any of it is anything but fairy tales. And they are as bigoted about it as ISIS without the killing. Besides which interpretation of the bible to we use?

- Collapse -
ever done a puzzle
Dec 25, 2014 1:27PM PST

where a few pieces were missing and a few didn't belong to that puzzle? Did you eventually get it figured out? See most of the picture, understand what it was about, even if there were a few pieces you couldn't find, maybe they fell under the table, or crack of the couch, or ended up in the wrong other puzzle box. As you fit the pieces together it became more and more clear what it was supposed to be, to look like, (assuming no picture on the box). You also realized what didn't belong. It's something like that. Eventually you just know.

- Collapse -
Good point. It must be---
Dec 25, 2014 2:05PM PST

we make it all the time. Happy
Concerns the "different" mss versions as well. Two 'bad' ones can be collated to produce a good one; e.g. internally consistent.

- Collapse -
Diana, please check your information.
Dec 25, 2014 1:55PM PST

Steven will tell you it was the medieval Council of Trent that had the most to do with solidifying what Catholics use as the Bible and how they use it. (New Catholic Encyclopedia: "... the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent)...") The Church originally accepted the LXX (Greek) version of the OT, which contained the apocryphal books the Jews had passed up. The rest had more to do with religious politics than God, Jesus or theology. (The KJV, 'the Protestant Bible', originally included the Apocrypha, by law, and an intro that lambasted "that man of sin"- the Pope!)
Your Middle East info may be confused with others, like the Nag Hammadi library and the Cairo Geniza (qq.v.)
Jerome, not my kind of theologian, was correct when he said, "All [NT] apocryphal books should be avoided; but if [one] ever wishes to read them, not to establish the truth of doctrines, but with a reverential feeling for the truths they signify, [one] should be told that they are not the works of the authors by whose names they are distinguished, that they contain much that is faulty, and that it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay." Emphasis added.
You might want to read what Catholic scholars had to say about an apocryphal book of the NT, the Protevangelium of James. Although not accepted by Rome as scriptural, it's the sole source of "accurate" information behind at least two major RCC feast days, both recently celebrated.
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

- Collapse -
Not fully true about Constantine and the bible
Dec 26, 2014 12:55AM PST

As I understand it, assembly of the writings whose authors could be authenticated was a very long and grueliing process. The church fathers, no doubt, consumed a lot of coffee and donuts while arguing over what stayed and what went. Stories that Constantine had the last word were likely false. The importance of the preservation of the original writings as well as the apostolic traditions were largely, if I understand correctly, came about when it was recognized that Jesus return may not happen anytime soon. It's not unlikely that much of the inspired word was never admitted due to the inability to find some sort of apostolic signature attached. Possibly the most important thing that came out of the Nicene council was the set of common beliefs. You may have heard the word "ecumenical" which can't be defined in a couple of lines but requires considerable discussion to fully understand. But, the nutshell version as it relates to the early church was to establish unity of belief. The "Nicene Creed" outlined the core beliefs held by the church as they relate to Jesus' arrival, departure and promise of return. The creed also speaks to Jesus' divine nature as well as his unity with God and the "holy spirit" as being all part of the same being. It's arguable that Constantine's purpose was more that of a true believer than as a mediator wanabee between the eastern and Roman divisions of the church. Ecumenism has been the long standing goal of the Catholic church. That doesn't mean making everyone like us but focusing on that we all share in unity rather than being distracted by our divisions.

- Collapse -
Whether it was one time or place or another,
Dec 26, 2014 2:43AM PST

my basic point is that atheists are not going to accept any of it and some books were left out and some were left in. Also some of those books are now being uncovered and looked at.

- Collapse -
Well, it is true, but it's nice that someone
Dec 25, 2014 2:15PM PST

as popular as Thomas is saying so publicly.
However... "What is truth?" This is, from the column:
"all of it, from the angels, to the shepherds, to the virgin birth,"
This is not: "to God taking on human flesh." (That same human addressed that same God, in Thomas's Bible, in mine, in James', in Steven's, in the Pope's, as "you, the only true God..." (John 17:3) Same chapter, referring to his faithful disciples, "that they may be one just as we are one" and "also concerning those putting faith in me through their word [later], so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you."
Not convinced? Rev 3:12.
(The last part addressed to Steven and James, to obviate a need for separate replies.)
Accurate information, minus the warm and fuzzy Xmas stuff, is available here. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20121201/why-did-god-send-jesus/

- Collapse -
Jesus Christ, the God.
Dec 26, 2014 12:17AM PST

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Phillipians chapter 2
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men....

there's plenty other scriptures that deal with the Jesus Christ Diety.

- Collapse -
You've seen scriptural responses to these
Dec 30, 2014 7:26AM PST

misapplied verses before, James. I stick with Jesus himself: John 17:3; Rev 3:12.

- Collapse -
you don't understand father and son
Dec 30, 2014 7:43AM PST

you seem to think it's father versus son. The son is like the Father, he also is God.

- Collapse -
I understand the answer to
Dec 30, 2014 10:34AM PST

1. Who is the only true God?
and
2. Who is the God of Jesus?

Isa 6:9,10

- Collapse -
but do you understand them
Dec 31, 2014 6:59AM PST

to both be of the same substance? Of them both being "God"?, Like you and I are both "Man".

- Collapse -
BTW the World Book article on Xmas
Dec 30, 2014 10:37AM PST

has much the same information as a typical Watchtower article on same. I mention this because the WB is found in most school libraries. The same schools attended by the children of the parents of those who oppose us for teaching... the truth. Happy

- Collapse -
Just came across this.
Dec 30, 2014 11:45AM PST
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december/o-subtle-star-of-bethlehem.html
"For 400 years, astronomers have tried to explain the celestial phenomenon that attracted the Magi to the birth of Jesus. Johannes Kepler, the pioneer of modern astronomy, was the first to analyze it in 1614. Now, scholars increasingly agree that Michael Molnar, a former Rutgers University astronomer with a coin-collecting hobby, may have figured it out..."
Owen Gingerich, cited in the article, is an eminent astronomer with a keen interest in history. All of this was new to me. Has one thought I like: We can reject 'planetary conjunction' theories because these men would have known a conjunction from star. The article shows they may have been looking for heavenly events to fit their astrology, not astronomy; the moon reference is a good one.
Anyway, I'll still go by the idea with the most scriptural support.
Speaking of science, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem
- Collapse -
It was described like any glowing object
Dec 31, 2014 7:04AM PST

in the sky, and the word sky and heaven are interchangeable in both Hebrew and Greek. Obviously since it could deliver a message, move, stop at Jerusalem and give warning, turn off, turn back on, move again, stop again, it wasn't a normal celestial body. It was an "messenger" in the "sky", some sort of UFO to anyone other than the wisemen. It wasn't a planet, it wasn't a comet, it wasn't a flock of very white birds.

- Collapse -
Good analysis; it was put there.
Jan 4, 2015 4:59AM PST

By whom?