I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
What's even more ironic is when certain Anons in one thread will quote Q with utmost confidence saying "It will be Biblical," but in another thread they argue that "duH bIbLe HaS bEeN ChanGEd!"
smh...
It will be biblical and the Bible has been changed. These aren't contradictory statements. Have you read the removed books of the Bible?
The corruptions of the Bible is now a proven fact. If the scriptures weren't corrupted, we would not have been able to read them in the first place. During the 4th century when Emperor Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity, the Essenes, Ebionite Nazirenes and Gnostics vowed to preserve the scriptures and prevent them from being tampered by Rome. The result? Those books were violently burned and buried along with their believers.
The claim that the Bible has been irrevocably corrupted during the 4th century under the influence of Emperor Constantine is not supported by ANY credible historical scholarship. Let's address this assertion and provide some context:
Corruption of the Bible: While there have been variations in biblical texts over time due to copyist errors, variations between manuscripts, and translation differences, these variations do not necessarily equate to corruption. Biblical scholars and textual critics have worked diligently to reconstruct the original texts of the Old and New Testaments by comparing and analyzing the thousands of available manuscripts. Modern translations are based on careful scholarship and aim to provide accurate renderings of the biblical texts.
Constantine's Influence: Emperor Constantine played a significant role in the history of Christianity, most notably through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious tolerance to Christians. However, the idea that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity is a contentious assertion and lacks strong historical evidence. Constantine's primary role was to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to address theological disputes, particularly the Arian controversy, not to insert pagan doctrines.
Essenes, Ebionite Nazirenes, and Gnostics: These were various groups with diverse beliefs and practices within early Christianity. While they had their unique perspectives, they were not the sole preservers of Christian scripture. Early Christianity was marked by theological diversity, and the process of canonization of the New Testament involved the wider Christian community. Certain texts, such as Gnostic writings, were not included in the New Testament due to their theological differences and later development.
Violent Suppression: The claim that books were violently burned and buried, along with their believers, needs to be substantiated with credible historical sources. While there were periods of religious conflict in the early Christian history, making such a sweeping statement without specific historical references is problematic.
It's essential to approach historical and religious claims with a critical and balanced perspective, relying on reputable sources and scholarly research. The development of the biblical canon, the influence of early Christian figures, and the spread of Christianity are complex historical subjects, and they should be examined with nuance and care.
Gnosticism is an ancient heresy.
Thank you.
What you're missing is the whole Church knew what books were inspired,by 180 AD at the latest.
The whole idea of "Canonization" is misunderstood, and blown entirely out of proportion.
The Church preserved Scripture, and handed it down to us. Constantine had basically nothing to do with that, except to end persecution for a while.
"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" – St. Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5
"Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned.” – Eberhard Nestle
"...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy” – Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
"The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice" – Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament
"In the year 325 A.D. was perpetrated one of the most colossal frauds and deceptions in the annals of history. This was the date of the Council of Nicea, whose task it was to create a new religion that would be acceptable to Emperor Constantine..." – R. W. Bernard, The Historical Apollonius Versus the Mythical Jesus
“Constantine himself said, “Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd.” – Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525
"The Council of Nicea was a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. The sudden adoption of a quasi-philosophic term to define the historic Jesus as equal to God was a major departure from scripture and tradition. Further, the use of this term 'trinity' in a Creed meant that, from 325 on, Nicenes could and did proclaim other dogmas that have no basis in Scripture" – State Church of the Roman Empire; Ben H. Swett; 1998
In regard to the fourth point:
"The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors... decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death […] the conquest of the East was immediately followed by an edict which announced their total destruction“ – The Church of our Fathers - 1950, pg. 46
“The doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God the son was decreed by worldly and ecclesiastical powers. Men were forced to accept it at the point of the sword or else, Thus, the error of the trinity was propounded to the end that ultimately people believed it to be the truth. Thus Christianity became in essence like Babylonian heathenism, with only a veneer of Christian names.” — Victor Paul Wierwille (1983), Forgers of the Word
Thanks fren for your detailed analysis. But on the other hand, if history is written by the winners, how accurate will that version of events be. Given that the printing press hasn't been invented just quite yet back then, how many copies of alternative facts would be available and how easy or hard would it be to destroy all remaining evidence? Just a thought.
Wow, did ChatGTP just enter?
True! If it has been changed, how many times? Who did it benefit? What did they not want us to know? Pieces were hidden and have been found... this is also interesting. I have been a practicing catholic my whole life and when I found out this, I started to investigate and have now, grown so much.
Yes.
The idea that "books were removed from the Bible" is to announce that you have no idea what the Bible IS, how it was created, or how we got it.
it's literally called the King James Version
as in his version of the Bible.
yet so controversial to some to suggest
Because it has been controversial since its inception. When the first version of the KJV was completed in 1609 (not 1611) there had already been opposition by the public. King James had always wanted to replace the Geneva Bible which the people of England used at that time. It wasn't until his son Charles I who banned the GNV that KJV began to have a place among the populace.
Or even compared texts between say, KJV and septuagint? There are translational issues alone that can change meaning and significance. Ezekiel is full of them for example
You can't compare the texts of the LXX with the KJV. LXX was the OT translated from Hebrew into Greek at the last time when people who knew the OT were fluent in both. It was completed circa 250 BC.
The OT in KJV was translated from the Masoretic text which wasn't completed until 900 AD, or maybe 950. Jews changed it to obfuscate that Jesus is the Christ. The Church ALWAYS used the LXX until Martin Luther. Jesus read the LXX, as did His disciples.
You can compare a translation into English of the LXX to the KJV, but let's not confuse people.
Excellent input, fren.
Yes sorry I wasn't more clear. Meant translation comparison
Quite the epic.
I could say: I am going Old testament on your ass. It does not mean I berate old Testament or belief it. It simply is. Like the Iliad and the Odyssey, The Nibelungen, or more modern: The Song of Ice and Fire.
If you're going to write that you absolutely need some quotes from Pulp Fiction ;)