God

[KRCummings]

Pure from the point of view they are unredacted, untranslated, uninterpreted and were part of the Bible as a whole. The Nag Hammadi scrolls also contain books that did make it into the Bible after Nicaea.

You can also get inferences of how Nicaea changed the meaning of some pretty fundamental stuff in the 'accepted' Books of the modern Bible:

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (interpretation after Nicaea - i.e. what the verse says now in most editions)

"Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error – for He rose up first and then died." Nag Hammadi

Idiotic is as idiotic does.

From your own wiki link:

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek

 

[Exquisition]

What? They're translations. Quit being stupid.

KR you're not even worth the thought process to respond.

 

[KRCummings]

KR you're not even worth the thought process to respond.

Yeah, I figured as much.

 

[Exquisition]

A Christian has to accept Christ as the Savior. There isn't much else. The OT and a good portion of the NT don't play into it. Some say you have to accept that God is not only aware of our actions but cares. I don't know if that really matters plus it kinda goes along with the whole Savior thing anyway.
The Bible as a whole is what it is. Only God knows if it's His true word. I sorta doubt it is though. I think even He would consider it a guide more than anything.

See, the problem I have with religious zealots is that they're not required to prove anything. They have 'Faith' and faith conquers all Simples.

Come up with plenty of evidence the Turin Shroud is a fake, or the Earth is older than 6500 years and you'll get a well trodden plethora of responses justifying why the bleedin obvious isn't so.

Eventually, after you painstakingly provide evidence (which requires work) to the contrary you get the bottom line Caveat:

"Cos it just is. God tells us so."

But we could be having the same conversation on a Hindustanii, Seihkhist, Buddhist, Islamic, Shintoist and so forth thread and they will all argue their belief system is the one true belief system.

So who's right? The Moslem or the Christian?

After the humble mosquito, religion has probably (probably) been responsible for the most deaths and suffering to mankind.

All in the name of a belief system. Biologically the brain is hard-wired to believe.

Religion, the last preserve of the weak. Go smoke your pipe KR.

 

[Tryharder62]

So this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi

Don't really factor into the sanitised Bible that made it out of Nicaea I then?

Just wondering how you're measuring 'trustworthiness'. Pretty sweeping generalisation for a sanitised version of the Bible and it's descendants that zealots refer to now.

You sure the Bible is so trustworthy?

Yes, I am sure. The council of Nicea looked at each book to see if it was written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. An apostle being someone who had seen the resurrection and who had close fellowship with Jesus. If books were written over a hundred years after the time of Jesus like the Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter they were not included. I like to get first hand knowledge myself from someone who had the direct inspiration of Jesus - From someone who had been there and done that.

 

[KRCummings]

See, the problem I have with religious zealots is that they're not required to prove anything. They have 'Faith' and faith conquers all Simples.

Come up with plenty of evidence the Turin Shroud is a fake, or the Earth is older than 6500 years and you'll get a well trodden plethora of responses justifying why the bleedin obvious isn't so.

Eventually, after you painstakingly provide evidence (which requires work) to the contrary you get the bottom line Caveat:

"Cos it just is. God tells us so."

But we could be having the same conversation on a Hindustanii, Seihkhist, Buddhist, Islamic, Shintoist and so forth thread and they will all argue their belief system is the one true belief system.

So who's right? The Moslem or the Christian?

After the humble mosquito, religion has probably (probably) been responsible for the most deaths and suffering to mankind.

All in the name of a belief system. Biologically the brain is hard-wired to believe.

Religion, the last preserve of the weak. Go smoke your pipe KR.

And this has what to do with what I said?

 

[CHNOPS]

And this has what to do with what I said?

It's on the same Internet, duh.

 

[Exquisition]

And this has what to do with what I said?

Nothing. I was being as obtuse as you have been.

So creationist or evolutionary?

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

A Christian has to accept Christ as the Savior. There isn't much else. The OT and a good portion of the NT don't play into it. Some say you have to accept that God is not only aware of our actions but cares. I don't know if that really matters plus it kinda goes along with the whole Savior thing anyway.
The Bible as a whole is what it is. Only God knows if it's His true word. I sorta doubt it is though. I think even He would consider it a guide more than anything.

I think we pretty much agree on this. The OT is a bad acid trip but I recognize the word of God in the NT.

 

[Sean]

Yes, I am sure. The council of Nicea looked at each book to see if it was written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. An apostle being someone who had seen the resurrection and who had close fellowship with Jesus. If books were written over a hundred years after the time of Jesus like the Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter they were not included. I like to get first hand knowledge myself from someone who had the direct inspiration of Jesus - From someone who had been there and done that.

The earliest book of the Gospels is Mark, written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. The other 2 synoptic gospels are merely copies written much later.

 

[Trace_Element]

The earliest book of the Gospels is Mark, written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. The other 2 synoptic gospels are merely copies written much later.

I have always read that Mark was "probably" written between 50-70 A.D., which wouldn't be even 50 years after Jesus' death...but in any case, the most "recent" telling of the story, from the time things went down until they were documented...

 

[Tryharder62]

The earliest book of the Gospels is Mark, written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. The other 2 synoptic gospels are merely copies written much later.

...Not...

 

[dutchrain]

The earliest book of the Gospels is Mark, written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. The other 2 synoptic gospels are merely copies written much later.

According to neutral bible experts Mark was written around 70.

Matthew and Luke are part copies of Mark, both hat also an other source, a collection of stories now lost, that was unknown to Mark.

 

[ishtat]

Yes, I am sure. The council of Nicea looked at each book to see if it was written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. An apostle being someone who had seen the resurrection and who had close fellowship with Jesus. If books were written over a hundred years after the time of Jesus like the Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter they were not included. I like to get first hand knowledge myself from someone who had the direct inspiration of Jesus - From someone who had been there and done that.

Tryharder, your statement appears to be based on your beliefs rather than your understanding.

1 The Council of Nicea did not consider the Canon at all - not in any way whatsoever. The First 'modern' Canon was that issued by Bishop Asthanasius of Hippo (North Africa) in his Easter message of 367 - 20 years after Constantine's death and 42 years after Nicea.

2 Mary of Magdala was the first to meet the risen Christ so by your definition would have been an apostle - yet the emerging church wrote her out of history, and the Canon - one wonders why?

3 Your definition also eliminates Paul as an apostle - and it seems hard to imagine Christianity at all without him.

4 If you are going to apply an arbitrary definition of 100 years after the death of Jesus you are in some danger of excluding writings which were included in the NT Canon. Dating of biblical texts is notoriously tricky and it's worth remembering that the oldest piece of any NT document is the Rylands Fragment (a few words from John) which dates from 190 to 240 AD

5 It's also worth remembering that the Book of John gave early churchmen a lot of problems, it is clearly gnostic in many respects and probably only made it into the accepted canon because of its unequivocal support for the 'fact; of resurrection ( which is otherwise poorly evidenced in the NT).

I'm not arguing with your beliefs and I think in fact that if you read some of the Gnostic gospels that would achieve two things, firstly it would probably add strength and certainly understanding to those beliefs. Secondly you will obtain an understanding that Christian belief in the early church was vibrant, varied, and deeply controversial. In my own view, some of the Gnostic gospels were barking mad but some of them show remarkable religious insight and are well worth reading.

Finally: there is A Catholic Canon, A Protestant Canon, A Jewish Canon, A Syriac Canon, A Coptic Canon, An Ethiopian Canon and about five other orthodox variations - so it begs the question that they which one are we talking about and which was divinely expired.

If your interested look at some of Elaine Pagels work she is a quite brilliant New Testament scholar and an expert on the so called 'Gnostic' gospels

I think it's helpful to adopt a more inclusive approach.

 

[ishtat]

Matthew and Luke are part copies of Mark, both hat also an other source, a collection of stories now lost, that was unknown to Mark.

The other source is usually referred to as Q or Quelle.

 

[KRCummings]

Mark was written somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 AD. That would put it roughly 30 or 40 years after Jesus' death. Close enough to get the big picture right but long enough to lose the details. Especially if they really were drawing from another source which is likely since one is referred to in either Luke or Matthew. I don't remember which.
And they were written in Greek. For those who think some Coptic books are "pure" and "untranslated."

 

[BoyNextDoor]

A question for all you bible scholars out there.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

So who is "our" in this context?

 

[KRCummings]

A question for all you bible scholars out there.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

So who is "our" in this context?

Who cares? The Trinity, God speaking to Himself, mans attempt to anthropomorphize God, a mistranslation? What difference does it make?

 

[julybaby04]

A question for all you bible scholars out there.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

So who is "our" in this context?

The Trinity

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Who cares? The Trinity, God speaking to Himself, mans attempt to anthropomorphize God, a mistranslation? What difference does it make?

I would imagine mans attempt to anthropomorphize God as opposed to the mystery of the trinity would make a difference to the faithful.

 

[KRCummings]

I would imagine mans attempt to anthropomorphize God as opposed to the mystery of the trinity would make a difference to the faithful.

Don't see why. Everyone is ok with paintings that protray Him as an old guy with a beard. Everyone applies human thought and emotions to Him even though that makes no sense and doesn't fit His actions and words in the Bible. So we have Him talking to Himself while working. Who doesn't do that? I do it all the time.

 

[zTraveler]

God doesn't speak to people on TV with bad hairdos

 

[KRCummings]

God doesn't speak to people on TV with bad hairdos

He might. God must have a sense of humor since he gave us one and it must be really really really dark. At least by our standards. What's funnier than telling some guy with bad hair to take money from old ladies and then get caught blowing a teenage boy?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Don't see why. Everyone is ok with paintings that protray Him as an old guy with a beard. Everyone applies human thought and emotions to Him even though that makes no sense and doesn't fit His actions and words in the Bible. So we have Him talking to Himself while working. Who doesn't do that? I do it all the time.

LOL - You are quick witted KRC that is for sure.

 

[Tryharder62]

Tryharder, your statement appears to be based on your beliefs rather than your understanding.

I think it's helpful to adopt a more inclusive approach.

I really appreciate your comments. I certainly may not have it all right but my understanding is that they looked at the accepted "scripture" of the time in order to make the decision whether Jesus was in fact a diety. They did not invent the doctrine, the council only recognized what the scripture taught and systemetized it.

You bring up a very good point in the fact that I have not read the Gnostic Bible. It is something that I should do so that I can discuss it better.

A better way to talk about apostles is that only Jesus can give that designation to someone. We are all his disciples. Paul did meet God/Jesus on the road to Demascus.

There is something that I hesitate to bring up but I will to explain myself. God works in my life. He has helped me through some pretty serious stuff. I welcome any debate that makes me look at my faith more. In doing so I find comfort that it hasn't drawn me away from it but has pulled me closer.