It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Emperor Constantine edit the bible to his liking?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Almost everything about modern christianity is based on the strategy of making conversion as palatable as possible. Even the date of Christmas was placed on an old pagan feast day so that the masses wouldn't have to change their holidays!




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
I've already looked at the bottom line, and the entire bible could be rewritten from the 36,000 recorded quotes of early church leaders alone, let alone the thousands upon thousands of originals which exists. The bible is one of the best recorded historical documents we have. The last book to be written was Revelations, which is at the very latest 95 AD. We can also translate back to the original Hebrew and Greek languages


Your sheer denial of reality astounds me. The assertion that "thousands upon thousands" of originals exist is at best laughable and at worst woefully ignorant. The bible as a historical record is also a statement who's validity is severly questionable, as I am sure most people would agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old not too mention any of the other numerouse historical INaccuracies the bible contains. And most early writings would have been in aramaic, a precursor to the modern hebrew and arabic languages.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
No, the bible isn't Constantines creation. I've already looked at the bottom line, and the entire bible could be rewritten from the 36,000 recorded quotes of early church leaders alone, let alone the thousands upon thousands of originals which exists. The bible is one of the best recorded historical documents we have. The last book to be written was Revelations, which is at the very latest 95 AD. We can also translate back to the original Hebrew and Greek languages by way of wonderful books called Concordances to make accurate copies. Deny ignorance; your thread and it's assertations are a waste of time. I'm not going to bother with it any more, or future ones of a similar nature, except to pass it's disqualifier along.
Thank you for your information. I read some where that he edited it. So I though I would get to the bottom of it all. So the bible is 100% the word of GOD?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAFJetTech
The bible as a historical record is also a statement who's validity is severly questionable, as I am sure most people would agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old not too mention any of the other numerouse historical INaccuracies the bible contains.


To be fair, I think Northwarden's phrase "historical document" actually means "document from history", i.e. a document inherited from the past. He wasn't commenting on the historical accuracy of what it says; just on the evidence for the document itself.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


If thats what he meant, then could I also describe The Illiad as an 'accurate historical document'?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by USAFJetTech
 


Northwarden did not actually say "accurate historical document". He said "best recorded", meaning that there were a lot of manuscripts. And, yes, the Iliad is a well-recorded document in exactly the same way.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Well then, I stand corrected on that point.
I too agree that it is very well recorded in history that a document refered to as "the Bible" and commonly used by jews and christians in various forms does, in fact, exist.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

The last book to be written was Revelations, which is at the very latest 95 AD.


Included, not written, included in the Bible, at the First Council. My apologies, I had a brain bubble. In fact, I would reword the whole paragraph now since what I said hardly brings any proof to bear.

Early Christian Writings and Dates
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

These all predate Constantine, and the point I was really trying to make is that they can be trusted to be accurate to the originals.

Page 5 (to 6), this thread ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is another thread I'm looking for which brought all of this to light. I'll include it when/if I do ... the least I can do after that messup.

As for proving the Bible was the inspired word of God, that is not going to be "proven" to anyone that chooses to believe otherwise. Blessed are they who believe through faith. Are many answered prayers, perfect peace of mind, and healing any "proof"? I must say, I advise throwing your doubts on the backburner, and read some testimonies. The more you "attack" something, the less likely you are to find any support from it. An unbiased approach is usually best to uncover the truth of a thing, obviously.


The question “How did Constantine alter the Bible?” has become popular since the release of The Da Vinci Code. The book reads, “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."1

Is this true? Did Constantine alter the Bible? No, Constantine did not form or collate the Bible. In 306 AD, Constantine (274 – 337 AD) became ruler of the Roman Empire. He gained his fame for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after he deceived and defeated Licinius) before supposedly converting to Christianity (his conversion is debatable).

In 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea, which was the first general conference of the Christian church. Constantine had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon and it was not even discussed at Nicea. Instead, the council that formed decisions about the canon took place in 397 in Cathage. This was 60 years after Constantine’s death.

It is important to note that 21 books were acknowledged by Christians long before Constantine. In AD 330, Constantine did finance the copying of 50 Christian Scriptures. However, this was not a new Bible, and he did not omit any of the already accepted books.

So, how did Constantine alter the Bible? There is no historical evidence that he did!


www.allaboutgod.com...

Constantine had his own version (speaking of the 50 above). "Both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus omit the ending of the Mark gospel describing the resurrection of Christ as well as the ascension of Christ into heaven found in modern bibles. These were added after 331 AD. "

Please read the following :
essenes.net...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
they can be trusted to be accurate to the originals.


And how is it, exactly, that they can be trusted?



As for proving the Bible was the inspired word of God, that is not going to be "proven" to anyone that chooses to believe otherwise. Blessed are they who believe through faith. Are many answered prayers, perfect peace of mind, and healing any "proof"? I must say, I advise throwing your doubts on the backburner, and read some testimonies. The more you "attack" something, the less likely you are to find any support from it. An unbiased approach is usually best to uncover the truth of a thing, obviously.


I have read testimonies, I have seen 'proof' of 'answered' prayers, I have seen people whose religion gives them perfect peace of mind and faith healers... of ALL faiths. What does it say to you that the things you use as proof of your religions truth are things experienced also by people whose religion is directly opposite yours?

What I engage in when it comes to deabte on the veracity of the bible is not an attack. It is called criticism. Bringing to light gross innacuracies and fallacies of doctrine do not constitute an attack. In science we call it peer review, and it is an important part of determining somethings truthfulness.
If we took everything on 'faith' without deep examination we would all still believe that sicknesses are caused by demons in your blood and that to cure it we should bleed you... Rational inquiry has accomplished more than faith ever has



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Read The Hiram Key, although it is a book covering the history of the Masons the authors did a thurough investigation into what the 'secrets' being protected might actually be.

Beyond that however, these debates never amount to anything beyond 'my book is better than your book' and history has shown where that particular path leads. I have no desire to try and convince you of anything, either you will open your eyes or you will not: the choice is entirely yours.

Like it or not, much of Catholicism was stolen from pre-existing belief systems or adapted to include the beliefs of a group that was being subjugated. Many churches were deliberately built on pagan worship sites and Christian calendar events were adapted to fit long established Pagan rituals.

Go find the material yourself, but you will have to look beyond the pro-church literature to actually learn something.

Here's a starter for you...When was Christ ACTUALLY born? The current date is/was the time of the premier Pagan celebration. The only thing scholars can agree on about the actual birthdate of Christ was that it WASN'T December 25.

Another interesting fact is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, mainly because Roman Maps (the best in the world at the time) clearly show that the town/city of Nazareth wasn't settled until well after Christ had died. This title is derived from Jesus THE NAZARENE, sadly the Nazarenian beliefs that influenced Jesus don't leave much room for institutionalized religion or the amassing of wealth and power to use controlling the masses.

Please understand that I am not attacking your (or anyone's) belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ; freedom of religion is a right of all sentient beings. However the Roman Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever followed even the most basic tenents of it's founder.

The RCC is nothing more than the first and original corporation.

Returning to The Hiram Key, the authors at the end of one chapter explain why at that point in their research they walked away from the project for more than five years: they couldn't justify their religious beliefs with the historical facts they were learning. It was only after realizing that thier belief system was an internal matter independant of any institution that they were able to continue their work.

If only more people could accept that same fact then our world would be much closer to the vision outlined in humanity's holy texts.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by [davinci]]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I don't disagree in regards to peer-editing, I'm just saying this has been peer-edited already, and it's nice to be able to "stand as dwarves on the back of giants" (Emerson) sometimes and not re-invent the wheel. We have the benefit of going to the societies who have done the work, and recognize the people involved really did want to get to the bottom of matters, just as much as we do. If you want to question their research, or their peer editing, then go right ahead.

I think it's also a danger to see people bringing up "new discoveries" that propose to completely rewrite history on already verifiable subjects. Whoever controls the present, controls the past sort of idea. Just because the wish to do so has a popular appeal does not appeal to a searcher for truth. That's not to say that there haven't, or won't be such discoveries, but I can't see such a well researched topic as this being unfounded. There's not a mass conspiracy about bible translation, from my perspective. Most bibles also include their footnotes very well, such as "these four lines were not included in the original Greek translations of the Septaugint, but were found in the Torah", as a random example.

Besides countless research sites, Wikipedia is your friend
It's not going to stay up there if it's not accurate for long.

Origins of the Bible
www.allabouttruth.org...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by [davinci]
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Read The Hiram Key, although it is a book covering the history of the Masons the authors did a thurough investigation into what the 'secrets' being protected might actually be.

Beyond that however, these debates never amount to anything beyond 'my book is better than your book' and history has shown where that particular path leads. I have no desire to try and convince you of anything, either you will open your eyes or you will not: the choice is entirely yours.

Like it or not, much of Catholicism was stolen from pre-existing belief systems or adapted to include the beliefs of a group that was being subjugated. Many churches were deliberately built on pagan worship sites and Christian calendar events were adapted to fit long established Pagan rituals.

Go find the material yourself, but you will have to look beyond the pro-church literature to actually learn something.

Here's a starter for you...When was Christ ACTUALLY born? The current date is/was the time of the premier Pagan celebration. The only thing scholars can agree on about the actual birthdate of Christ was that it WASN'T December 25.

Another interesting fact is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, mainly because Roman Maps (the best in the world at the time) clearly show that the town/city of Nazareth wasn't settled until well after Christ had died. This title is derived from Jesus THE NAZARENE, sadly the Nazarenian beliefs that influenced Jesus don't leave much room for institutionalized religion or the amassing of wealth and power to use controlling the masses.

Please understand that I am not attacking your (or anyone's) belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ; freedom of religion is a right of all sentient beings. However the Roman Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever followed even the most basic tenents of it's founder.

The RCC is nothing more than the first and original corporation.

Returning to The Hiram Key, the authors at the end of one chapter explain why at that point in their research they walked away from the project for more than five years: they couldn't justify their religious beliefs with the historical facts they were learning. It was only after realizing that thier belief system was an internal matter independant of any institution that they were able to continue their work.

If only more people could accept that same fact then our world would be much closer to the vision outlined in humanity's holy texts.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by [davinci]]



Do you mean this book?

www.scribd.com...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Theone2000]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Goodness forbid new discoveries disprove previous beliefs!

"Im sorry sir, I know DNA evidence has ALLEGEDLY cleared you of this murder that you have served 20 years in prison for, but since we've invested so much time in believing you were guilty... we're just gonna ignore it and let you serve twenty more."

Christianity has been a dominant power for so long that true "peer review" of christianity has never been possible. I recall a certain propensity of christians to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with them...
And since thats no longer fashionable, now they just say its not politically correct to criticize someone's faith.

NOTE: The image is slightly NSFW due to language, but it is rather humorous


[edit on 27-4-2010 by USAFJetTech]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I am glad that we are finally in an age where we can question the origins and alterations to a holy book without being torn from our beds at night and burned at the stake in the town square. If some folks had it their way though, it would still be like that. Yes, I believe that Constantine had a hand in the bible's changes, but then, so many have! I am sure that this work of fiction BEGAN as a true light in the darkness, the word of God, but it has passed though so many power-hungry priests and clergy that it has been turned into a collection of fables. Yes, the events may have happened, and the names may have changed, but major omissions have rendered it false. Like Jesus said, They (the priests) are like a dog in a manger... he doesn't eat the straw, but he doesn't let any other animal have it either. We now know how, and have the tools to go and find the truth. Just like in politics, we must ask questions! There's a lot of reading to do with the Hidden Books, but to the hungry mind and thirsting heart, it will be as a feast for the soul. I should know. I live in Texas where one never questions a preacher or a high school football coach. Both have the same pull around here, and both manner of creatures hate me for my challenging nature.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
"Im sorry sir, I know DNA evidence has ALLEGEDLY cleared you of this murder that you have served 20 years in prison for, but since we've invested so much time in believing you were guilty... we're just gonna ignore it and let you serve twenty more."

Lol we're talking about a religion where originals exist, which is the equivelant of your DNA in the analogy. You're actually the one that would like to tear it apart for twenty more years despite the evidence. Please go ahead, we'll come back when you're done and just point out the obvious again. I hope you don't confuse too may people along the way though; that's on your shoulders. Did you read my last link? Have fun.

I'm not saying you won't find anything new, or improve education, or have a better insight. It's valuable on it's own. You are talking about a juggernaut of information however, safeguarded by too many wise individuals who devoutly preserved what was sacred to them. Corruption only goes so far to alter such a work.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Please enlighten me... what are these "originals" you keep refering to?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Here are some proofs for you, regarding originals.


When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.



Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.



From :
debate.org.uk...

And another page I find informative :

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?



How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.

Three Errors To Avoid

Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.

When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.

Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.
Procedure for Testing a Document's Validity

...


The Greek Manuscript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.


Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
www.leaderu.com...

I feel it important to add that I am not trying to present conflicting evidence; I have also the Dead Sea Scrolls in mind, and have read before that there are indeed originals. It may just be a matter of research, but I bet I could come up with what I previously found, given some time.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.



Thank you for proving my point... now when do you plan to enlighten me as to the "originals" you keep refering to?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Lol, yes smart-ass
Please read my last edit. posts that crossed on the net.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
This is a common problem with antiquity in general. What would you have to say about this overview?


The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years. 5

Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years). 6

Renowned Bible scholar F.F. Bruce declares:

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.


www.allaboutthejourney.org...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join