jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (205 posts)

Does anyone realize that the Bible was put together by a council?

  1. kittythedreamer profile image94
    kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago

    Why does everyone think that the Bible was written and put together by God? Don't people realize that there are many holy books and manuscripts that have been excluded from the Bible? St. Thomas Aquinas wrote one and it was omitted from the Bible by a group of people a few hundred years after Jesus walked the earth? Why should we put our trust in this random group of men?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wasn't Thomas Aquinas born, not a few hundred, but several hundred years after the writing of the Bible, and even after the Nicean Council?

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Thomas Aquinas died on March 1274. A few hundred years after Jesus walked the earth, Thomas Aquinas would not have been born yet.

      A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun … onceptions

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        From the same article, under purpose of the council:
        " In the Council of Nicaea, "The Church had taken her first great step to define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."

        Is there a real difference between "revealed doctrine" and "canon"?  Not being Catholic, they sound much the same to me...

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Uhm yes.

        2. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I will help you Wilderness, and I won't bum steer you, you can trust me. I have seen this same argument made many times and for some reason, that lacks understanding, it makes its rounds over and over again.

          The quote should be "define revealed doctrine"  and "canon".

          Canon is a combination of particular books that are incorporated in particular bibles. Some bibles have some books that others do not, because some have found some to be more authoritative than others. Some bibles contain more books than others. Some believe that some books are apocrypha and exclude them from the collection. Other bibles include apocrypha.  Apocrypha exists whether it is included in a certain bible or not.

          Defining revealed doctrine is a different matter, altogether. That still goes on today. For instance, my beliefs are different than other more main stream Christians in some ways. We differ on doctrine. We differ on what the existing books and text may say or mean. Apocrypha in the NT does not have much of a bearing on defining revealed doctrine. I am not an expert on NT Apocrypha, but I do not believe by it's exclusion from some bibles, yet inclusion in others, makes any difference in defining doctrine.

          In the development of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament in Judaism, they did have a propensity to exclude OT Apocrypha, to influence their (Judaism) doctrine, but that has nothing to do with defining revealed doctrine in the NT.

          Canon is a collection of books. Defining revealed doctrine is (as just examples) a debate on whether Jesus was created by God, or was with God in the beginning or both, or whether Jesus IS God, or Jesus is the Son of God. One is a collection of books. Another is a debate on what the books say. That is what the council did. They debated the doctrines.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Understood.  But it would them seem that the canons were required to match the revealed doctrine that the first council came up with - any writing that did not agree would not be included in the bible.  In that manner of speaking, that council did indeed control the canons even though they were not decided upon for centuries.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              The council did not change canon. They just debated the already existing canon. Apocrypha is still here. It did not go anywhere. Apocrypha is still included in some bibles. If the councils goal was to influence doctrine by getting rid of Apocrypha, well they failed, because it still exists. But that was not their goal anyhow.  Apocrypha does not change any doctrine that I am aware of and it is still here. The council debated doctrine, we still do this today. The canon and apocrypha (included, excluded, laying on a shelf somewhere) is still here.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                That would be incorrect, at least if we're talking about the same thing.  There WAS no bible when the first council of Nicaea met; the bible did not exist for several more centuries.  No bible, no canons (if by canons you mean the collection of books that would one day be compiled into the modern bible used by most of Christianity).

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  When I said the debated existing canon, I meant, they debated doctrine from whatever books they had. There is a claim that they even had deuterocanonical books at the council. None of which makes any difference on their (what they actually did at the council) debate at the council about the doctrine of Trinity, for example.  "There is no evidence among the records of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon"-wiki - they just debated doctrine.

                2. Writer Fox profile image80
                  Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  When you discuss the canon of the Hebrew Bible, it is important to remember that what you are talking about is the personal history of a family: the descendants of Jacob. 

                  The first ten chapters of Genesis were not originally written in Hebrew, but were translated to Hebrew (Ivrit) from Sumerian in the days of our ancestor Eber (Iver), the ancestor for whom our family language is named. This was in the 3rd and 4th generations after the Great Flood. The rest of the Book of Genesis and the other books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) were written by our historians (scribes) and prophets. 

                  Originally, each book was a separate, hand-written scroll.  Even today in synagogues throughout the world, hand-written scrolls are used and the value of each is the cost of a year's wages for a Hebrew calligraphy artist. Every king of ancient Israel was required to write the first five books of today's Bible in his own hand-writing on a scroll, or he couldn't be king. And, he had to write the scrolls in the actual presence of our Levitical priests (Deuteronomy 17:18).  This task takes about a year.

                  With meticulous attention to accuracy, the scrolls of our people were reproduced as the family grew larger and more copies were needed. Not every community had a complete library; in fact, most did not.

                  What you have today in the Hebrew Bible is not a complete collection of all of our ancient texts.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 – 1956 produced portions of every book in a modern Bible (with the exception of Ruth), but it also produced more than 900 remnants of other scrolls. You may view portions of the actual scrolls from Israel (written more than 2,000 years ago) here: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il.

                  The books comprising a modern Bible contain references to dozens of other books that we have lost over the years, during war and dispersion, such as: The Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18); the Book of the Wars of God (Numbers 21:14; The Annals of the Prophet Iddo (II Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22), and etc.

                  However, as far as the basic books required for connection and obedience to our God – the core curriculum we are required by commandment to teach to our descendants – our historian Flavius Josephus (37 CE – c. 100 CE) wrote this for the Romans who destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE):

                  "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

                  This was, and still is, the basic canon – the library of a people.

                  1. Huw Watkins profile image61
                    Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Very interesting, thank you for your insight.

                    Just a comment and anecdote or two on what you say about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

                    I visited Qumran last year on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. For those who don't know, it is the site of a Jewish sect who lived in community, bathed, prayed, ate and wrote scribes together. You could almost compare them to a cloister in one sense. One thing that struck me was how developed the water irrigation system was considering how dry the land was. They bathed exclusively in fresh water before every meal in various large communal bathes. The water was then emptied out each time. I digress.

                    The information I have is simply what the Jewish people who curate the site tell visitors, so please excuse me if I say anything incorrect. The Dead Sea scrolls were actually discovered in one cave initially and a second soonish after, and more since I believe. A good number of the scrolls simply pertained to the rules and tradition of the Qumran sect that lived there. However some were copies of scripture (which, it is claimed, differ to varying degrees to the Jewish bible) and some are New (or should I say previously undiscovered) altogether.

                    Interestingly, it is claimed in Qumran that St John the Baptist had some contact with the sect and was even invited to stay with them. However after a period as a novice he left before being fully tonsured into the sect. It is also claimed that news of his death went back to members of the sect through passing travelers.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      On a very simplistic scale, and running with the idea of a council, here are some thoughts  IF there is a God that used humanity to communicate his message to in a form that could be maintained down history, we would very obviously still also have OTHERS that weren't inspired by God also writing all kinds of things.  Even spiritual, possibly helpful devotional kinds of things or poetic, historical covering some of the same people from various points of view.

      The idea I heard is that IF God's words were communicated in the form of manuscripts and copies and he orchestrated that, then why wouldn't it also make sense he would create a way to remove non inspired words (even if good ones, OR ones that have outright opposite factual information) through the means of something like a council? 

      So we would have something spiritual, weighing in on what is good and true, with opposing texts that need to not also just be included, which would be one big mess.  Where would it end?  So could God inspire through a council, and does it need to be automatically deemed as a form of control over people?  Which could be easily accused, for all we did see?  False doctrines always crept in, it makes sense that God would ensure it not be included with the rest of his revelation to mankind.  Speaking of the ideas here, as it all makes sense to me, minus my own personal beliefs on the thing. 

      If God is real, it makes sense he uses the forms of revelation he does, to let us know of him.  Things like his inspired words through written form, his Spirit, the morality put within each of us through conscience, nature, and a reasoning mind to look at man now and in history, etc.  Most of all, I think Jesus was the main revelation.  All with enough possible little loopholes as to not force a willful person that is in opposition to him to say "thats all crazy stuff."

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      The council of Nicea, from which comes the Nicene creed of the Catholic Church, which was (at the time) a statement of uniform Christian doctrine.

      It was not St. Thomas Aquinas (he was an italian priest in the middle ages), you mean the gospel of St. Thomas, which refers to St. Thomas the Apostle (to distinguish him from St. Thomas Aquinas). This book is a non-canonical text heavily influenced by the gnostic tradition. Scholars do not believe this text was written by the St. Thomas the Apostle, and there is no conclusive evidence as to who the author was.

      As for it being "holy". The gospel of Thomas is not accepted as an authoritative or sacred text by any existing Christian denomination, so I would question whether it is accurate to describe it as holy.

      As for the reasons some books were excluded. The purpose of the council was effectively to decide what "Christians" believed. The main subject of debate was the nature of Jesus, i.e. whether he was fully human, fully god, or part human part god. Once they decided on a consistent core belief, anything outside of that was considered heretical, and therefore excluded. The gospel of St. Thomas was one of the texts considered heretical. Same goes for the gospel of Mary Magdalene.

    5. Kiss andTales profile image30
      Kiss andTalesposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Kitty to answer this question , example of a book you may write, you may rough draft it ,
      You also make sure that you address you are the Author , the owner of the infomation put in that book.
      Once all sources have been compiled you combine all your writings including history, past and present events.

      Once there is enough information catalog, then you are ready to share.

      You may market your book or better just contribute the information as valuble knowledge and set no price.
      The bible is a book that is inspired of God, it is not bias of man ,woman or child, it message is for everyone.  It has wisdom , it has poetry,  it had counsel, but the greatest message and treasure is how to keep living for eternity with the one who already is eternal. He grants that as a gift. But on the other hand that provision was supposed to come through Adam who short lived at 930 years of age,  So we needed a substitute to adopt us from Adam, because all Adams offspring us would just eventually live to die forever.
      The provision was all in making, by producing a perfect man to replace Adam. It was a success.  We now have a future never to die forever.
      If our physical body dies before the earth has changed over into Jesus Hands from satan, we
      Will come back in the resurrection hope.
      A price was paid for that provision.
      The bible is more then a book of knowledge , but a book that provides the answers to our future and happiness, many people doubt the book , because new translators have tampered with parts deleting and being bias as to their own belief. Which creates doctrines of men.
      The message we need to know has not been tampered with.
      So there is no excuse to say it is wrong.
      The problem is people want to use that as an excuse because they are offended by the moral standards that people want to live anyway. But they are allowed to chose as they wish even though it is against the standards of God,  the world already reflect their choices and the world is at an high rate of caos,  crime, disrespect of life.
      No matter what people say , the proof is the results as we speak.
      Also you must understand that after Jesus death and disciples the writing of scriptures were duplicated, the Deciples had the truth traveling and preaching . The Jews on the other hand who killed Jesus was trying to strip his name and purpose as the chosen of the heavenly Father. 
      So they rewrote parts and replace parts of the scrolls, but what they did not know there was already duplicates of the truth that had reach different parts of the world. There is more important things that we should know , but criticism is a snare used by satan to stop people from learning the truth to be a survivor into the New Earth.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        You may be missing her point, which I think is a valid concern. I don't question the existence or the power of God. I don't question his desire for humanity; as expressed through the life and works of Jesus Christ. Yet, I do think the evidence is clear that humans suppressed some information primarily to ensure uniformity of belief within the movement.

        Were there those who used this to advance their power? It would be naive to think not. Was it necessary for the survival of the movement? It would be foolish to think otherwise. Without some uniformity of belief the faith could not grow as a movement; as we have witnessed through history.

        So, although one can argue that the Bible is as it is because God wanted it to be that way it is an equally valid argument that it had to grow that way because of the flaws of Man. At first. That the other writings which were suppressed were no less inspired than the ones which were not. One shouldn't dismiss ancient writings which were not included in the Bible simply because they weren't included.

        I see the new revelations and discoveries as expanding on the story of Christ in ways that we may not have been able to understand, therefore could not accept, previously.

    6. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Of course, the bible was written by a council.  Everyone who has studied religion knows this.  However, there are some people who still maintain that the bible was "divinely" inspired.  The bible was written to suit the needs of the authorities.  Those books which those authorities found threatening were omitted from the bible.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        That's a somewhat negative spin. Anyone who has studied history knows that there were many conflicting ideas as to what Jesus' message was and what it all meant. We are just finding out how many conflicting ideas there appeared to be, even among the apostles. The 'authorities' didn't write the stuff; for the most part. They simply chose the stuff they found most useful for incorporating into the particular brand of faith they chose to build.

        If you think about it, had there not been some push for uniformity the movement could very well have died. The Church after a couple of centuries became like the Roman government was prior to that. Stamping out anything they didn't agree with. Had no church gained some level of respectability within the Roman civilization they would not have been in a position to push one view and suppress another. All Christian views would have been eventually suppressed.

        Divinely inspired is not the same as divinely written. I think most of the text is divinely inspired. But, I also believe there are many texts equally inspired that we are just beginning to study to find out what the full depth of their meaning is.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          How is that a negative spin? Gmwilliams hit it on the head. Same goes for the King James version - why is this supposed word of God have so many versions? Oh yeah, to fit the needs of the church authorities. "Anyone who has studied history knows that there were many conflicting ideas as to what Jesus' message was and what it all meant". Actually anyone who has studied history (Canaanite along with Jewish mythology) would question Jesus's and God's existence.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            It's a negative spin, in my opinion, because she claims
            The bible was written to suit the needs of the authorities.  Those books which those authorities found threatening were omitted from the bible.

            We all know that the second sentence is true. The first sentence sounds naive and self serving if not patently false. The question I would have is why were there competing stories out there if the ones which made it into the Bible were written specifically to suit the stated needs of the authorities? Was there some Roman competition announced to see who could write books 'the authorities' liked and could use to bind the masses? Her statement implies that she believes there was no movement prior to the Nicene council. I think we all agree they were the first 'authorities' in a position and with the desire to turn the entire movement into one cohesive group and force them to follow one particular strain of belief in Christ.

            The supposed word of God has so many versions the same as any ancient text might. If you think about it, claiming something to be the word of God is a very, very, powerful claim. It can lead people in directions they might not have thought they would go. Which makes it incredibly important to ensure that your translation is correct. There are sects who have moved where a comma would be expected to be and created a separatist movement just by that. That simple act changes an incredible amount of belief in what Jesus meant on the cross.

            You have one tome which is a compilation of the writings of multiple authors over possibly thousands of years. If it is the inspired word of God it has to have some continuity. It has to be making some point. It has to be leading the reader to some conclusion. I am in disagreement with most of organized religion as to what it all meant. That is by my reading of the text and my understanding.

            I don't think this makes me right or wrong. I hope it makes me right for my life and my understanding. I hope it helps me find the way to be a better world citizen. Others have to come to their own conclusions and lead their lives in accordance with their understanding. As evidenced by your statement Actually anyone who has studied history (Canaanite along with Jewish mythology) would question Jesus's and God's existence. That is your understanding. I can't claim that is right or wrong. Your life will determine whether these conclusions were right for you and a benefit to those you interact with.

            Edit. One other thought. Most of humanity believes in the existence of God. Would you prefer to let the writings of Islam define that entity? If not Islam, which religion should? Your lack of belief is a minority view so you will have to imagine some view which includes the belief in God holding sway.

            1. Kiss andTales profile image30
              Kiss andTalesposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I do not believe no certain religion applies  since the bible is read global it effects all men, women, child,
              Example do not steal , kill, comitt, any sin applies to all humans.  Ac 10:34 At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial,
              Ac 10:35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
              The same thoughts to all nations of people hear.
              Now reverse the meaning , the person does not accept his word is not acceptable to him.
              This is not human thinking , but Divine. How can a man know the mind of God unless he communicates the ideas to us by transmission.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                This is the part of your comment that should be focused on. We can't know for sure. Since it is very easy to take different quotes from the text and use them to build a philosophy....one which is completely at odds with other Christian philosophies; I believe all we can do is look to the example of Christ as a model for human interaction.

                To take lines of text and use them to judge other human beings, as if we are in line with the thoughts of God, is not following the example of Christ. By my estimation.

                If one feels that God is speaking to them they have to accept that if this is true it is a private conversation not meant to be imposed on others. If God wanted to tell others the same thing he is telling you, then I assume he would do it. If he isn't then the one who thinks God is speaking to them needs to step back and rethink their conclusions.

                1. Kiss andTales profile image30
                  Kiss andTalesposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Well we do know the mind of God because it applies to all humans , it is not bias to your skin, male, female, it is humans who make it bias in opinions and push their views.
                  The greatest proof is artifacts , cuneiform papas scripts saying similar thoughts and words,  a miniature artifact as a scroll discovered says in it The house of David,
                  David was the anointed King of the true God, YHWH (Jehovah our language) point is this has not change , people alter and change the truth.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    The one truth which, I think, outweighs any other claims to truth is that Jesus walked among us. If we want to know the will and mind of God, that is the one figure who can shed the most light on the subject and is the one figure whose actions, if at odds with other words, should be alluded to as the truth and those other words should be seen as what they are. Something the reader, and or the writer, has probably misunderstood.

      2. Kiss andTales profile image30
        Kiss andTalesposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        A bunch of stories as you expressed are in vivid color and is active as we speak,
        Lets look at some.

        Mt 24:7“For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another.
        True .
        Mt 24:9“Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.
        True .
        2Ti 3:1But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.

        2Ti 3:2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
        unthankful, disloyal,

        2Ti 3:3having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness,

        2Ti 3:4betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,

        2Ti 3:5having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

        Everyday is proof that these words written in the bible is accurate and true and effects all humans now.

        So while you are saying different we are experiencing the reality.  Truth.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Yeah right. Anything but reality. It's truth because you simply say it is.

    7. Oztinato profile image84
      Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      There are certain atheist groups (who shall remain nameless!)  who believe the entire New Testament is a hoax as they claim JC never existed. These are the "tin foil hat" brigade who posit numerous conspiracy theories. Someone at sometime had to collate the enormous amount of written and verbal information regarding persons, places, letters etc. Of course this had to be a faulty human process that balanced the various political groups and traditional beliefs of the time. We are left to study and meditate on the information from a huge distance in time and culture. It wasn't a conspiracy, it wasn't the "Illuminati"(smile) just the socio political forces of the time coming to grips with the philosophy of JC.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Think that was the new testament.

    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, St. Thomas Aquinas' book would've been a part of the New Testament, but who put together the Old Testament then?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I believe you will find it was the same group that compiled the new testament.  They picked and chose among the available writings they could find those that best fit their purposes and created the bible.

      2. MonkeyShine75 profile image82
        MonkeyShine75posted 20 months ago in reply to this

        The Men Of The Great Assembly, which were Jewish scholars, sages, and prophets
        Who believes God wrote the bible? I've never heard this before

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          It's a pretty common thing.  God used men to write His words into a book, but they were no more than "pencils" in His hands.  The words come from God, not men.  The popular term is "Inspired by God", meaning that men wrote what He wanted them to.

          1. MonkeyShine75 profile image82
            MonkeyShine75posted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
            I think I understand now, sort of smile

  3. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    You are referring to the council of Nicea.

    And they did not write the bible, they standardized the version used by the Catholic church. Those books were already penned and in circulation, and the old testament was kept by the Jews way before that council.

    So you should study up on the history of the texts and the councils a lil more.

    But I am sure if you wait someone will post a more in depth answer to your question.

  4. Alastar Packer profile image84
    Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago

    Thats right TMMason, The Council of Nicea. Early 4th century-325 C.E. They decided to leave out: The Gospel of Thomas: The Gospel of Judas: The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Maybe some more. Know why they left out Thomas but not the others?

    1. Cagsil profile image85
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'll take a hap-hazard guess? (like I need to guess) lol

      Certain ones had nothing to do with religion. wink

    2. TMMason profile image75
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is this a test?

      First it must be said that if you believe Eusebius, then they did not even speak of the books of the bible at Nicea.

      As to the old testament...

      Old Testament Canon

      The idea of a finished Old Testament canon was spoken by both biblical and nonbiblical sources. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish writer of the first century, had this to say

      "We have but twenty-two [books]",

      -(Written originally in Hebrew and Aramaic, the compilation of sacred writings that came to be the Jewish Bible emerged from the religious experiences of the ancient nation of Israel. The Jewish Bible contains 24 books divided into the three sections. The Christian Old Testament (excluding the Apocrypha) contains the SAME books, numbered and ordered differently, resulting in a compilation of 39 books.),-

      "containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. 1, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1960, p. 8).-

      So as you can see the old testament is the same as the Jews had... simply numbered differently, and when totaled with the new testament you have 49 books, 7 x 7... whole numbers reflecting completion.

      As to Thomas, some would say Gnosticism is the reason it was rejected out of hand, but as I said, according to Eusebius the books were not discussed at the council of Nicea. A description of the proceedings by Eusebius (who was there) in his Life of Constantine. Eusebius included it, thomas, among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".

      1. Alastar Packer profile image84
        Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No test Joe. Me make bad sentence. Just meant I'd read why they (supposedly) left out the Gospel of Thomas but didn't know why the others were omitted. If this had been a test you'd of passed with flying colors. Course I'm just a layman on the Bible history front so it sure seems like you'd of done remarkably well. Impressive TM.

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Awesome, TM.

        1. kittythedreamer profile image94
          kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, AP! I'm going to try to look those up, as I'm interested to see the differences or even similarities between those books and the New Testament gospels.

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    They left out dozens.

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    'Certain ones' said things like Christ was a wizard when he was younger and did bad things. I remember that from a bible class I had a long time ago in college.

    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think I want to try to find a version of St. Thomas Aquinas' book, as well as Mary Magdalene's, if they indeed have been translated and exist on the market.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is a good documentary series on NatGeoTV that examines this very question. smile

  7. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I think I know why the New Testament left books out. It was because they wanted unity of the message. Books that were considered inspired that didn't jive with the message the powers that be liked were excluded, for that reason. Or so I've heard.

    Makes you wonder, if Christianity chose the right books to study.

    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, Emile. It definitely makes me wonder...

  8. livelonger profile image91
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    What Christians call "the Old Testament" is a reordered version of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh). The Christians felt the need to change the order of the prophecies to imply that they were talking about Jesus (they were not).

    But the Torah (5 books of Moses) alone was authored by at least 4 different authors; you can google "Documentary Hypothesis" to learn more about what historical scholarship has been able to come up with regarding it. (This is not controversial among more liberal, and populous, streams of Judaism; only the Orthodox react negatively to the implication that the Torah was written by man)

    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, livelonger. I didn't know that about the Old Testament. Great information.

    2. Huw Watkins profile image61
      Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      There is a book written by James Carroll "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews – A History (2001)" which attempts to prove the premise that Christianity is inherently anti-semetic and actually caused the holocaust. James Carroll is a former Papist Priest (i.e. Roman Catholic). The book is very well refuted in a paper by Deacon Michael Hallford of the Greek Orthodox Church. Here is a link to him reading his paper:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoIQfzC … ubs_digest

      I thought you may find this interesting. I assuming you know a little of the basic history of Christianity and how the Roman Catholic church broke from the Orthodox church at the end of the first millennium after Christ.

  9. Darrell Roberts profile image78
    Darrell Robertsposted 5 years ago

    If people really wanted to know the truth they would take the time to research and study all the religions.  They would find out many things about religions that may be disruptive.  It is easier to go with what sound nice. God is good, God is great and Jesus saves.  Keep seeking, there is so much more to find.

    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, Darrell. I am on a seeking path myself.

  10. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    St. Thomas Aquinas lived nearly a thousand years after the first ecumenical council. The NT had already long been established and solidified.

    Even Jesus left some things out. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12 KJV). Did he ever teach his disciples these hidden things? Were they revealed in Pistis Sophia?

    Perversion of Sacred Texts?

    Justinian apparently deposed a sitting pope and installed another one (Vigilius), and when the new pope wouldn't obey, Justinian had Vigilius placed in confinement in Byzantium (Constantinople) for 8 years. Vigilius even refused to attend the religious ecumenical council Justinian had convened. After the council had voted, Vigilius was allowed to return to Rome, but he never made it home alive. Were the contents of this religion being determined by someone's political agenda? It seems so.

    The idea of reincarnation may also have been suppressed partly by the anathemas against one of the early church fathers, Origen.

    Hidden Wisdom

    But there is much more going on in the Bible than can be gleaned from a literal reading. There is a great deal of wisdom hidden in the Bible, particularly in Genesis.

    For instance,

    * A biblical timeline compatible with those of science
    * An understanding for why God would give such incredible protection to a liar and a murderer (Cain)
    * A resolution to the seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs (did Methuselah really live to 969 years of age?)
    * The discovery of the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" conceptual matrix embedded in Genesis
    * The discovery of the real culprit behind Noah's Flood
    * And the real reason for Noah's Flood; and it wasn't our garden-variety wickedness and violence, because the Flood did not cure these. What did the Flood cure? Surprisingly, the answer is found in science!

    Why Trust?

    Why trust this group of men (and how can you say "random")? It depends on how you interpret the work. If you interpret it as garbage, then don't. If you see, however, profound wisdom, then do. But before you decide, make sure you are fully aware of your reasons. Any selfishness will blind you to the truth.

  11. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Kitty... The simple answer to your ? as to why some books were placed in the New testament and others not, is this. The books in the new testament can be shown to be traced back to the Apostles, or someone directly involved with the Apostles.

    The Apocrypha cannot.

    Here is a link that speaks fairly well to the issue.


    After the Apostles, there are no more devine revalations.


    K Bro. I just get a lil weary, some on here make everything a test or game.


    1. kittythedreamer profile image94
      kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But what about the books written by Mary Magdalene...did she live after the time of Christ? Why was her book excluded, because she was a female or because it went against how the council wanted to portray Jesus?

      1. kittythedreamer profile image94
        kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse me, "Book", not plural.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is a whole debate on whether Jesus had female apostles or not. To publish a book pretty much proving that he did would have had a huge impact on gender roles at the time.  As not all males are ready to acknowledge equality TODAY, imagine how bad it would have been centuries ago to be presented with evidence that JESUS accepted equality... (somewhat anyway)

        1. Huw Watkins profile image61
          Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The idea that the Holy Orthodox Church is somehow against women is simply fantasy. Did you know that the Blessed Virgin Mary is regarded to be above all the Saints in our church? She is referred to as Hyper Agia in Greek which very crudely translates into Hyper Holy or The Most Holy. No other saint is venerated with such love and honour. As for Dan Brownesque conspiracy theory nonsense about the Blessed Mary Magdalene, she is also a Saint in our church and do you know what we call her? The Holy Myrrh-Bearer Equal of the Apostles Mary Magdalene.  We love and venerate women with a special kind of admiration in our church and it is utter nonsense that true Christianity has an agenda against women. As TM Mason has correctly pointed out, the reason many texts were not included in scripture was that their authenticity could not be assured or more likely, the sources were known to be false. Exploration of the gnostic texts would amount to reading fiction, interesting in places but totally misleading.

      3. Knight6 profile image60
        Knight6posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        those books and others like it showed something the council could not afford to put in at the time they wanted to stop the volience between the christians and the roman pegan god believers so it had to choice the books that would show religion as the way forward the problem was the books were so different so they picked the ones which worked in their favour ie control thinking it would bring peace epic fail or what?as for the book of st thomas it is thought to be the gospel according to jesus christ........................

        1. Nexis19 profile image60
          Nexis19posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. Major epic fail. Personally i think the writing that were included were used to ensure control and now they are even failing to do that. Their will come a time where all the books that were left out of the bible will have to be included or at least made available to the public so that we can see other sides of the story. Also can i just say that the old testament portrays god as wrathful and the new testament portrays him as peaceful. I don't mean offend anyone but to me that seems a little bi-polar. Then again i have only glanced through the bible so i may be wrong and i hope if i am somebody will correct me.

          1. Sally's Trove profile image99
            Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree completely that the descriptions of god in the old and new testaments are at odds with each other. The god of vengeance vs. the god of forgiveness. Interesting to think that either god or the perception of him could have been balanced by dosages of lithium.

          2. Huw Watkins profile image61
            Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Hi Nexis, a contemporary Orthodox Priest Father Stephen Freeman has written a very nice article on this subject entitled 'loving an angry God'. He draws on the early church fathers to discuss the issue. I'm sure you will find it interesting: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2god … angry-god/

      4. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is Apocryphal, it is full of Gnosticism, and cannot be traced back.

        1. Huw Watkins profile image61
          Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Totally agree. What is said here has absolutely no footing in history or reality. If you read the synaxarion of the church (the texts on the martyrs and saints) you will see that Christians readily accepted and bore the brutality, torture and murder they endured from the Pagan Roman empire. Martyrdom was met with joy and early Christian men and women alike were amongst the bravest people you can find in history in this respect. Much of the Roman empire was converted to Christianity through these examples in the early centuries.  The idea that scripture was designed to stop violence is completely at odds with the Christian reality of the time. It's nothing more than conspiracy theory nonsense.

  12. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    TM, thanks so much for that link!  I read it; very explanatory; I even added it to my Favorites to save.

    Love your simple answer.  Amen smile

  13. 61
    Arcjahadposted 5 years ago

    I believe that all people who read the bible should include the apocrypha books as well because it gives a clear understanding to the whole story , and when you read the apocrypha will understand why those in power wanted them left out .

    1. Huw Watkins profile image61
      Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Again there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about scripture here. The Books of the so called Apocrypha are in fact INCLUDED in the official bible of the Holy Orthodox Church which presided over the ecumenical councils and still exists today as the guardian of true Christianity. It is only the Protestant bibles that leaves them out and the Roman Catholic bibles leaves only some of them out. See this link:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocrypha

      The Gnostic texts are not included however as their sources could not be authenticated or they were known to be false. Some were just popular heresies of the day. There were numerous heresies around as you can imagine, one prominent one evolved out of the Arian heresy about the nature of Christ. A certain lunatic named Muhammad made this particular heresy his own. He initially accepted a twisted version of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as he was unfortunately very influenced by the time he spent with an Arian monk known as Bahia or Sergius. This is reflected in the early suras of the Koran.  Later after his brutal war campaigns he saw the opportunity to profit from the creation of a 'religion' and changed his mind and wrote suras that conflicted with his earlier work. There have been countless such heresies throughout history.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Heresy.  Isn't that just a word meaning a belief different than your own?  After all, every religion preaching a different view is called "heretic" by every other religion: every one is thus heretical to someone.

        1. Huw Watkins profile image61
          Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          This reasoning holds true if you deny the fact that there is objective truth. If you believe that anything that is believed by anyone can be called the truth then yes everyone has the right to justifiably call everyone else a heretic. I do not believe that there is no such thing as objective truth and that any hair brained theory throughout history has merit as truth.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I agree with you.  The problem becomes one of deciding which belief system is "truth" and which is "heresy".  As none of them have anything to offer in the way of evidence it becomes a roll of the dice, at least if we are determined to believe something, anything at all, regardless of truth.

            Or we can take the agnostic path and decide that the truth is unknown and just live with our ignorance rather than declaring that we, and we alone, know the truth without need to substantiate it.

            1. Huw Watkins profile image61
              Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              It is for this reason that I ended up converting to Orthodoxy. There is no other source that has an unbroken connection to the times of the Gospels and the Apostles. The orthodox church places a great deal of emphasis on reading Scripture through the exigesis of the Holy Church fathers in the first 4 centuries. In other words it insists you read Scripture in both uistorical and theological context. The Holy Bible is not some book that dropped out of Heaven one day, it is the product of thousands of years of tradition culminating in the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies in the New Testament. Furthermore, the Church teaches a theology that is mystical in nature and not dogmatic as many would believe. It rivals any Eastern religion it's level of mysticism and the idea of spiritual healing is core to its teaching. Therefore historical fact and eye witness accounts have been recorded and preserved for 2 millenia in the church, it's mystical theology, scripture and it's understanding through the church fathers and liturgical worship and what we call the great mysteries (sacraments in western speak) are all key to the Christian truth. If I were to recommend one Church father to read as a starter it would be St John Chrysostom who is very accessible despite writing 1600 years ago. When reading the Saints and Church fathers and theology of the church, the truth simply leaps out at you. If you were only to read one thing from the Church I would recommended a Homily from a monk from the Holy Mount Athos in Greece on the Mystery of marriage in the 1970s: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/marriage.aspx. I find this to be testament to the depth and beauty in the Orthodox Church.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Come, come.  Which eyewitness accounts of Jesus were recorded?  We don't even know who wrote the gospels!

                Even the church recognizes this, but goes around it by declaring that the writings were directed by god (which they have no evidence for, either).

                1. Huw Watkins profile image61
                  Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  The Apostles were all eye witnesses.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    But we have no writings from the apostles, only from unknown people writing centuries after they were dead.  So again, which eyewitness accounts do we have of Jesus' actions or even existence?

                  2. Huw Watkins profile image61
                    Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    My apologies I meant to say that 2 of the main New Testament Gospels were written by eye witnesses.

                2. Huw Watkins profile image61
                  Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  St Paul, writing just 10 years after the events of Christ, comments extensively that Christianity is built on eye-witness testimony. There is such a huge cloud of witnesses and he comments that over 500 individuals witnessed Christ resurrected.

                  St John the Apostle, starts his first epistle saying:

                  "1:1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life.

                  1:2. For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us.

                  1:3. That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

                  Initially the eye witnesses bore testimony orally and only when they were dying did they commit the oral witness to written form. This is essentially how parts of the New Testament took shape.

                  Eusebius' The History of the Church outlines all the important historical details of Christ. It is well worth a read. A quick outline here according to wikipedia: The Church History (Greek: Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία; Latin: Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae) of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea was a 4th-century pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st century to the 4th century.

  14. Sally's Trove profile image99
    Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago

    It was all politics at the time. Gnostic texts were known at the time of the First Council of Nicaea and were excluded. Sort of like the privileged in the US government silencing opposition in order to keep their power.

    Some things about humans never change...we are and have been always either power mongers or sheep led to slaughter.

  15. BNash profile image58
    BNashposted 4 years ago

    There is a fine balance to be had when you are trying to get a message to an entire world of different experiences, cultures and histories since the tower of babel. So many different places with their different beliefs and all of them believe in either a higher being or a higher plane of existence. What better way to get a message across to your creation than to come down yourself into man, something that they can see and touch and relate to, and show them yourself how life should be lived as humans. That message has been foretold thousands of years before his arrival even and is still told thousands of years after his death... that alone at least shows to me of the truth of Emmanuel our Jesus of Nazareth, our savior. Also if there is anyone still questioning that existence is random, or if their is a god, just look at Math. Everything works on the organized system and laws of mathematics. Everything is bound by basic laws i.e; gravity, electro-magnetics etc... For there to be a law there has to be reason. For there to be reason there has to be understanding. For there to be understanding there has to be consciousness. I would tell you then, that any book that is written, even books like the Essene Gospel of Peace, which was translated in the last 200 years vs books written 1600 or more years before the birth of Christ should all be meditated and prayed upon. The books written are usually for a time period when they could bear the messages and understand them, as Jesus has said, there are things to be said that we cannot bear at this time. Also it has been expressed numerous times that to find the answers we seek on the books we read is to pray, meditate and turn inwards to ourselves because God's consciousness is in us as the holy spirit and will show us the truth. Sorry for posting so late on this.. I just found it today.

    1. BNash profile image58
      BNashposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Also TMMason.. id love to pick your brain...

      1. Travis Stillwell profile image61
        Travis Stillwellposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        barkley hows florida

    2. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Origin of the King James Bible version and it's council, came by the created version by Emperor Constantine in the year 325AD. At this time, he was losing his hold on his empire and wanted to gain control again so he held a council, called Council of Nicea, which took the Hebrew Bible in its entirety and called that the Old Testament and then adapted the story of Horus, the Egyptian god of the Sun, as the New Testament, to create Jesus

  16. 69
    paarsurreyposted 4 years ago

    Does anyone realize that the Bible was put together by a council?

    Bible is neither written by Jesus nor approved by him.

    The council selected some from so many books and discarded others; unauthorized

    1. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You said the same thing, from a different angle

  17. 60
    Ellis Clydeposted 2 years ago

    Hey everyone I know this is 2 years old but sometimes its nice to come back and re read things again. We can question whether or not they choose the right gospels or not but no one has said the fact that God wouldn't of let them publish the book if it was not the way God wanted it to be. God is perfect in everything He does. The Holy Bible you read today is God's word and promise to you. It was approved by God. Have a great day! God Bless

  18. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    If everything that exists is how God wants it, I question whether that immediately means it is what is good for us....

    Or is the idea that God makes sure the Bible is good for us but not other things in reality.

    Personally I like some of the gospels that did not get in better than some that did.

  19. Kametre Adkinson profile image60
    Kametre Adkinsonposted 2 years ago

    The Bible was put together as a mechanism of control.  I do believe the some of the stories were true, to some measure, but yes, it was written by a council.  If you ever watched "The Book of Eli" with Denzel Washington, a person asked the criminal wanting the book why does he want the book so bad...and he explained that with that book comes power.  If you can control the way a society thinks, you have total control.  Also, for those that haven't looked into the history of King James (one of the most popular versions of The Bible), I suggest you put it on your "things to do" list.

  20. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago

    Its best to get the people closest to the events themselves, and in this case we are speaking of God interacting with the nation of Israel to reveal himself, and then those that walked and talked with Jesus, and/or were close confidants of those that did, or had personal revelation also like Paul.

    It makes sense that later, many texts would surface, it was all a very big deal.  The point being, not all the texts carry same weight, even though they may be good texts, or interesting, or whatever.  As in all of life on all kinds of topics, we can each choose which to read and consider to be great texts for what we are trying to find more about.  In the case of God, I would rather stick to the stuff that has the best evidence for being in there, that doesn't auto exclude itself by being of a different gospel for example, or facts that are distorted.  If any of us thinks the works of say St. Thomas Aquinas is a great thing to read and live by, then that is still possible to do as well. No one is forcing people, if you really think something else may be inspired directly of God, to not read and live by those other books.

  21. 61
    Stephen DeLaunayposted 21 months ago

    Let me come to the rescue and reassure Kitty that no one thinks the bible was written and put together by God. When the faithful – of which I am not one so I've got no hallelujah in this hymn – refer to the bible as the “word of God”, they mean, as we all know except unfortunately the recent products of our educational system, is that it was inspired by God, and that the council which compiled the books of the bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in their choice of books to include. As self-respecting agnostics and atheists, we must have at least a modest understanding of what it is we don’t believe in.

  22. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 21 months ago

    Moving backward on the subjects, Aquinas only real contribution to Christianity was the addition of philosophical thought to theological studies, if you want to call that a contribution.  Of the councils of Nicea (several proper spellings depending on ...) the 325 AD is the best known and did set the canon.  However, scripture and tenets were really not the main reason.  Politics i.e. the setting of the power structure or beginning of the Roman Catholic church was the real reason, not to forget this was the 2nd Council and there would be others to follow.  There is a confusion by many that the RC was the original church when in fact believers "were called Christians" somewhere around 45-50 AD (I'd have to dig in my notes somewhere for a more exact date) and not in Rome but in Antioch.

    Well noted regarding the destruction of 70 AD. 

    We have 2 apostles that wrote Gospels, but both Mark (Mark 14:51 is suggested by many to be talking about himself) and Luke (based on Luke 1:2) were probably disciples also. 

    The OT, the written, can be traced back to around 1000BC (again, I'd have to dig out my notes but for now this is close enough).  The OT scrolls, papyri and vellums were carefully translated of the centuries under a rigorous, exacting system.  The masorites used these and other writings, including the Septuagint to compile the OT under the leadership of ben Asher and ben Naphtali to codify the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text.  This is just a quick synopsis all of which is verifiable using either secular or theological texts.  (And this off the top of my head so gimme a break if I'm off a bit.)

    Oh, forgot to mention, God did write part of the Bible (Exodus 31:18) and inspired the rest.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Where are the documents that God's hand wrote on, what were they made of and what was the writing instrument used?  For that matter, where are the documents that Mark and Luke penned themselves?

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Wild, I was not addressing authenticity at this point, only the common errors of those accepting God, the Bible and its history, including erroneous history.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          And those errors include accepting the bible as the word of God or as being written by the people purported to have done so.  It's nice to simply assume that because it sounds like something Mark or Luke would have written it must be so, but we all know what assumptions are worth.

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            By this reasoning, we have no room for conversation.  We can't talk evolution.  I don't believe in it.  We can't discuss origin of life outside of God.  I don't believe in it.  We can't talk global warming, again cuz I don't believe in it.  By your reasoning, I must reject, without exception, any information one would present in favor of a subject with which I disagree, and it must be done at the expense of all other related subjects.  Not much ground for conversation is there? 

            Except with those who believe similar to myself or might consider alternatives, which is the group I was addressing here, any issue dies with the first comment outside of ones realm of interest.

            These pages, unless I miss the point, are for conjecture, debate, humor, conversation, proper disagreement, etc.  If I chose to respond, I can.  If I chose to ignore, I can.  However, none of these are truly open to you unless the respondent agrees with you 100%, or as close as science can get to 100%, the measure of "scientific fact."

            A basis to an "position" (theory/postulate/assumption) is not a one or two liner which would fit here.  As with the science (which you seem to accept unquestionably), initial assumptions are the premise for study which leads to a position.  Eventually one finds the truth, the error or a stalemate which is just another unprovable but equally not "disprovable" issue.  You may call this last any of the above, or "scientific fact" would fit also.

            The question comes to mind... What are you afraid of?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Beliefs do have the effect of shutting down conversation rather abruptly.  When someone says "This is real and truthful because I want it to be so and will refuse to examine the process whereby I came to the belief" it doesn't do much for anyone but another with a similar belief that wishes confirmation. 

              While some are quite happy with such a position, others are "afraid" (although the term is rather strong) of it and wish to either know and understand truth or simply accept ignorance as a fact and live with it.  Subjective feelings and wants are always suspect and to be avoided when possible as opposed to gathered in and used to formulate a postulate that is then accepted as true; "belief" in other words.

    2. Huw Watkins profile image61
      Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      "There is a confusion by many that the RC was the original church when in fact believers "were called Christians" somewhere around 45-50 AD (I'd have to dig in my notes somewhere for a more exact date) and not in Rome but in Antioch."

      Completely agree. It is not unusual to hear Orthodox poke fun at the RC church saying it is neither Roman nor Catholic. The reasons for this are rather complicated. If we were to boil the history down to simple terms, one of the key preludes to the formation of the RC Church which resulted out of the Great Schism of 1054, was the invasion of the Roman empire by the Francs and other barbarian tribes. This lead to Charlemagne being enthroned emperor complete with his particular brand of hierarchical heavy handed totalitarian rule.

      The theology of Christ as the Great Physician and the Church as the hospital and the idea of sin being sickness was not something that fitted with barbarian rule and ideology. Charlemagne saw the church as simply another vehicle of control, many of the Bishops in the west were slaughtered and replaced with his own candidates. The RC church became a feudal church and led to the Pope trying to subjugate the rest of the Catholic Church in the East to his control causing the great schism. Hence the dark ages ensue with such results as the inquisition, corruption in the RC church, the reformation and the 'Enlightenment'.

      Antioch, Alexandria  (Africa) and Jerusalem obviously were all early Christians as you say. To them we can add Constantinople too. They all still exist today as the Orthodox Church and were largely unaffected by what was going on in the West, although they had their own problems with the Muslim invaders. In fact you could argue that Constantinople profited directly from the fall of Rome as it was declared New Rome when Old Rome fell. There's a great set of YouTube videos on this subject, which basically explain the ideas expounded by Professor Romanides. The last couple of videos in the series goes quite deeply into Orthodox theology and explores concepts such as the Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell and how far removed they are from the RC church and its descendants. You may find it interesting, it really fascinated me:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SjbC3w … 6021956D9A

      As an aside, Christianity reached Britain some time in the first century too and thrived for about a 1000 years until Rome finally imposed it's particular brand of Christianity on it. The monastic tradition that resembled that of the desert fathers and the early Coptic tradition in Britain was wiped out pretty quickly after that. So you can really say that it is actually the Orthodox church that is truly Roman and it is Catholic too.

      Anyway I digress hugely and a lot of this is much later. As for early Christian sites there are some in Capadoccia in modern day Turkey which are claimed to be amongst the oldest. Antioch is a big contender though and it is heart breaking to see how the Antiochan Patriarchate is suffering today (modern day Syria) and how the ancient sites are being looted by the likes of ISIS and others and ancient Christians who still speak Aramaic (the native language of Christ) being persecuted.

  23. Cat333 profile image81
    Cat333posted 21 months ago

    It's not really that the Bible was "written and put together by God", but rather that men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were used by God to give the message to us. Within the Word, we find references to many other works about Jesus, for example, and we are aware that much was written beyond the Scriptures we have. But God who through His Spirit gave the message for us to His prophets, is also able to direct through that same Spirit regarding which works are pure and should therefore be added, and further He is able to preserve His pure Word for coming generations, which He has done. We put our trust in God and let the Spirit guide us into all truth, including the truth of the Scriptures. God's Word, spoken by God and given to us by His Spirit-led messengers, is eternal and fully trustworthy. Just as those who had the message given to them relied on the Spirit to receive and give the message, so also we who are the recipients of that message from these inspired men rely on the Holy Spirit in order to recognize the truth within the message.

    God's great Prophets of old spoke truth to you and declared it as truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit. And in this day, we "prophets" (meaning anyone who speaks the truth of God) all speak and declare the everlasting truth that the Scriptures are true and trustworthy, and we know and declare it by the same power that comes from the Holy Spirit. And through that same Spirit of God, who comes into us when we become believers, you also upon receiving the Lord can know for yourself that the Scriptures are true.

    1. Huw Watkins profile image61
      Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      If we take a more pragmatic stance with regard to this subject, I think we can liken it to modern processes of writing about and recording history.

      Take a controversial subject like the Holocaust, for example. The overwhelming evidence suggests that this terrible crime against humanity did indeed happen. Eye witnesses have given both oral and written testimony. There are official records and there are undoubtedly records that were deliberately destroyed. There are survivors of this terrible tragedy that recount their own personal experiences. There are, however, historians that deny that the events ever took place - some produce documentary evidence that it didn't, or use clever arguments to negate the facts and write these down. Some write misleading and ambiguous accounts.

      It is now well over 50 years since the events and the body of documents, records and eye witness accounts lead the vast majority of historians to state that it did actually happen. There is also archaeological evidence to back up the oral and written records.

      In 2 thousand years, will this generally accepted version of history of this terrible time be much different?

      Why is this example any different to Christianity, given all the written and eye-witness evidence, particularly as NT testament scripture was put together so soon after the events.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Outside of simple assumption without knowledge, how do we know the bible was "inspired by the Holy Spirit, were used by God to give the message to us."?  That "But God who through His Spirit gave the message for us to His prophets"? 

      While the prophet of old (just as today) claim they have the word of God, how do we know "God's great Prophets of old spoke truth... by the power of the Holy Spirit"?

      It's fine to make the claims, but how do you back them up?  How do you show they are truth, outside of simply assuming they are?

  24. CamLewis1 profile image81
    CamLewis1posted 21 months ago

    Why should we put our trust in this random group of men? We should put our trust in these random group of men for one reason.We(you and me) are man(men).It strikes me as bizarre that when it comes to the bible how little faith we have in mankind.Though we trust man when it comes to everything else we have at this moment in time, from space travel to medical science.There is good and evil in this world and God uses both, even in the compilation, and translations, from Constantine to King James. Some of these weren't the most savoury or wholesome of gents.Yet using them Gods work is still fulfilled. I trust and believe the Bible completely yet I still see errors in it. Not errors in the sense of inaccuracy, but things that are easily misrepresented, an awful lot of the Apostle Paul's letters for example. I have also discovered other books mentioned in the Bible that aren't constituted  in its contents-the book of Jasher and several others.This has lead me to seek even more of the truth elsewhere.And I tell you honestly, I have found even more in the Holy Quran(I am not a muslim) and many of the lost books found at the Dead Sea.All this study has left me with a great deal of doubt, and confusion, but I tell you even when I have tried to cast off God , his word(s) still cry out to me. I hope this helps.

  25. Revolution Kev profile image84
    Revolution Kevposted 21 months ago

    After 3 years, the answer to Kitty's question is no clearer than it has been for 2,000 years.  Truth is, one can be completely oblivious to all of this biblical history and it will have zero effect  on one's relationship with God.
    Direct, 2-way communication with a higher power is NOT reserved for so-called prophets. It's available to everyone, at all times. Millions of people around the world do it every day.
    There is no need to look to the past for that knowledge. All it requires is a truly open mind...and heart.

    1. Cat333 profile image81
      Cat333posted 21 months ago in reply to this

      "It's available to everyone, at all times. Millions of people around the world do it every day." Yes!

    2. Huw Watkins profile image61
      Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I don't really see what is unclear. The answer to Kitty's question has a comprehensive answer. Firstly it is has been clearly established that Kitty was confusing two Christians with the name Thomas. St Thomas one of the 12 Apostles, who doubted the resurrection of Christ until he was able to touch the holes and put his hand in Christ's side ( I paraphrase scripture here) is who Kitty is most likely referring to. Thomas Aquinas was a very influential figure in the Roman Catholic church of the 13th century. He fueled the Roman Catholic need to explain and define absolutely everything in the world and viewed Religion as an exact science. I believe, along with many others, that his approach was deeply flawed and indeed could be called one of the pioneers of a man-made God that is an extension of human reasoning based on precepts and assumptions and a clever process of logic, thus negating revelation and making God an extension of man, ergo religion becomes science. Much of the RC error ensues as a direct result of this process and the inquisition is lurking in the wings of the horrific stage of the dark ages of that period.

      There is a Gnostic text that is allegedly attributed to St Thomas the Apostles (doubting Thomas as he is sometimes called in the West). The other name given to this text is the Gospel of Jesus. If you actually read it (it's freely available online) you will see that it comprises a list of sayings attributed to Christ. Some match what the other Gospels have some don't. It doesn't really offer any insight into the life of Christ or the events that transpired, nor, I believe, does it contain any divine revelation per se. For example, in the four main gospels, Theophany or θεοφάνεια meaning "appearance of a god" (Epiphany as it is called in the Latin tradition) is widely documented. Although this is not the first and only appearance of God, there are numerous examples in the Old Testament, in this wondrous event Christ is baptised by St John the Baptist and in this moment God reveals his true self openly to mankind - When Jesus came up from the water, the heavens opened suddenly, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. The Bible records that the Spirit descended like a dove and alighted on him. When this happened, the voice of the father introduces the son.

      This is not documented at all in the pseudepigraphical gnostic text attributed to St Thomas. I use this particular example as the feast of Theophany is celebrated today by all the old Julian Calendar churches - i.e. Russia and Serbia, the Jerusalem Patriarchate and so on), so it seems apt.

      This is what is said about the gnostic text in question in Orthodoxwiki:

      "In recent years the image of the Holy Apostle has been further mired by the media attention given to the recently discovered heretical Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, part of the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi, and also the Gnostic Infancy Gospel of Thomas. These Gospels are associated with the Gnostic heresy, and no Orthodox church regards them as being Canonical; additionally, they are almost universally considered to be pseudepigraphical, even among non-Orthodox Bible scholars. Cyril of Jerusalem attributed the Gospel of Thomas to the Manichees, saying of it "Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes." Likewise, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is generally considered to have been written no earlier than the second century (Irenaeus of Lyons may have referred to it in his seminal work Against Heresies). Thus, it is important that the Orthodox faithful reject any attribution of either of these heretical works to the Holy Apostle Thomas."

      As for Scripture being canonised in a council, this wikipedia link is very informative:

      "The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD. For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s.[1]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen … ment_canon

      So you could say that yes the Bible was formally accepted in a Church council, however in reality the text had already been around for hundreds of years (indeed the earliest parchments we have today are said to be dated to around 100 years after Christ) and the true canonical texts were widely accepted and recognised in the 3rd century. 100 years may seem like a long time to some, but let us not forget that some of witnesses did not write down their testimony until closer to their death and almost certainly not until the second half of the 1st century, much closer to the dates of the earliest manuscripts.

      This raises another very important question. The full body of New Testament scripture existed in oral form before the canonical Bible (although numerous writings did also exist very early on too). It existed in the Holy Orthodox Church as formed by Christ with his Apostles and which takes it's official birthday on the day of Holy Pentecost. Therefore the Church came before NT Scripture and as a result Church Tradition cannot be discarded outright in favour of a Sola Scriptura approach. Indeed, understanding Church Tradition and having the guidance of its saints (who have direct experience of God, His uncreated energies and His kingdom while still alive on Earth) is key to understanding the Bible. This is a mistake many modern Protestant professions make.

      This also is very informative:

      "The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.[citation needed] Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences.[95][page needed] The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; in the East, chiliasm and Montanism brought it under suspicion;[96] it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether in Byzantine or modern times."

      1. Revolution Kev profile image84
        Revolution Kevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        While I respect your incredible grasp of biblical history and detail, I still fail to see how you have answered kitty's question.  She asked why people believe the bible was written by God, and not mortal men. She asked why we should believe the men who translated these texts.... By your own evidence, you prove these books were written and translated by MEN, not God. And evidently, not by women either.  All of this biblical theory, or fact, still does nothing to prove that the bible is the direct and only "word" of God.  Nor does it offer any real proof that the "word of God" is only available to some ancient prophets.   I still would put forth the opinion that a direct 2-waqy relationship with what we call God is available to anyone, and without any biblical knowledge whatsoever. One does not have to be a so-called prophet to access direct communication with God. Nor does one need any knowledge of Christianity.
        Your answer is incredibly well researched, and I respect that, but it does not answer the question of why should one believe the Bible is the literal "Word of God".  Or why one even needs this research at all to have the same communication as a prophet.

        1. Cat333 profile image81
          Cat333posted 21 months ago in reply to this

          It is the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth. And He will reveal to you the truth of God's Word. While men were used to give us the Word (just as men translate that Word), the Spirit is able to ensure that the essential message is given and maintained. These men were limited by their own humanity, so that, for example, visions given by the Spirit still had to be described in human terms; yet they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that we can put our trust in the overall message being given.

          Just as you say, there is no need to be a prophet to access direct communication with God. Through Jesus Christ, the way has been made available for us all to come right into the presence of God and communicate with him at any time and no matter who we are. Even those who do not have the written Word, but who put their faith in Jesus Christ, who is the Word come to us in the flesh, are saved and are able to have an intimate relationship with God, who is the Father of all who accept their rights to become His children through the work of Jesus.

          May God bless you as you continue to seek Him!

        2. Huw Watkins profile image61
          Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I have to both agree and disagree with you on what you say. My limited experience is that of the Orthodox Church so I can only really talk of that with regards to Scripture and theology. However I am in no way well versed enough to say that my views infallibly reflect those of the Church.

          I think you are right in saying that I didn't really answer Kitty's question on why we should believe that Scripture is the word of God and the word about God. All I can do is attempt to make a case based on what I think many people will admit is the fallen or imperfect state of man. Perhaps this is presumptuous, but one only has to take an objective look around the world to see that man is, essentially, sick and in need of healing. Through this observation, I can only really try to build a case for the Orthodox Church, whose members compiled the Bible as we know it today.

          First of all, the Orthodox offer no concrete judgement on who is 'saved' and who isn't. What we say is that all the tools for salvation can be found in the Church and you are free and are actively encouraged to make use of all of these, including scripture. 

          Scripture is one of the means of curing oneself of spiritual sickness, however it can be a closed book if it is not understood in the light of and under the guidance of the Church Fathers. In fact some in the church feel it can even become part of the sickness instead of the cure and can be counter productive. The other 'tools' or mysteries of the church (as we call them) are also equally important to our spiritual healing and ultimately our salvation. They include partaking of the gifts (communion), prayer (communal, in the form of liturgies and personal, such as prayer of the heart or asking for intercession from the saints etc.), confession, fasting, asceticism, alms giving, the lives and writings of the saints, the miracles that continue to happen and so on.

          The Orthodox Church is very well defined here:


          The Church is the Body of Christ, a theanthropic (divine-human) communion of Jesus Christ with his people. The sole head of the Church is Christ. The Church is an object of faith, that is, Orthodox Christians believe in the Church. The traditional belief in the Church is attested to in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. By this phrase is meant that the Church is undivided and not many (one), sanctified and set apart for the work of God (holy), whole and characterized by fullness and universality (catholic), and has at its essence the going out into all the world to preach the Gospel and baptize the nations (apostolic).

          Because the Church is the Body of Christ, it is also the temple and dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. It is a continued Pentecost.

          The Church is the Bride of Christ, the eschatological spouse of the Son of God, united to him in faith and love, for which he gave himself up on the cross. The intimacy of a husband and wife is an earthly image of the intimacy that Christ has with his Church, and the union of an earthly marriage is a shadow of the union of that marriage of the Lamb of God with the Church.

          The Orthodox see the Church as a mystical organism, not an organization of like thinking people. In the Church is the community where man is what he is created to be and can grow for eternity in divine life in communion with God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The unity of the Church is not broken by time or space and is not limited merely to those alive upon the earth. The unity of the Church is the unity of the Blessed Trinity and of all of those who live with God: the holy angels, the righteous dead, and those who live upon the earth according to the commandments of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

          The community of the Church is the locus of salvation for mankind; it is truly the Ark in which mankind may be saved from the flood of corruption and sin. In it, Christians sacramentally work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), worshipping the Holy Trinity in spirit and in truth. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth (I Tim. 3:15) and thus may be relied upon in the Christian's struggle to apprehend the one truth for himself. The Church is eternal, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

          Unity in diversity

          The Church as a whole is an icon of God the Trinity, the mystery of unity in diversity. In the Trinity the three are one God, yet each is fully personal; in the Church a multitude of human persons are united in one, yet each preserves his personal diversity unimpaired. The mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity is paralleled by the coinherence of the members of the Church. In the Church there is no conflict between freedom and authority; in the Church there is unity, but no totalitarianism.

          The Church consists of the prophets and saints of both the Old and New Covenants, the angels and the concrete, historical community of believers in this earthly life, past and future generations, in one and the same grace of God . It is both visible and invisible, both divine and human. It is visible, for it is composed of concrete congregations, worshipping here on earth; it is invisible, for it also includes the saints and the angels. It is human, for its earthly members are sinners; it is divine, for it is the Body of Christ. Not unlike the incarnation.

          There is no separation between the visible and the invisible, between (to use western terminology) the Church militant and the Church triumphant, for the two make up a single and continuous reality. The Church visible, or upon earth, lives in, complete communion and unity with the whole body of the Church, of which Christ is the Head. Orthodoxy, therefore, while using the phrase 'the Church visible and invisible,' strongly insists that there are not two Churches, but one. (The term is only in relation to man.)

          The boundaries of the Church are ultimately known only to God himself, but outside the historical context of the Church—that is, the Orthodox Church—the nature of the connection of any human being to the Church (whether a believer in Christ or not) is unknown to us. Throughout Church History, various groups have broken from the Church, a tragic reality which does not divide the Church but rather divides believers from the Church. The final status of Christians in such communities is dependent on God's mercy and grace, as is the case with those with membership in the Church in this life.

          Before Pentecost

          It is sometimes inaccurate to think that the Church started on Pentecost. The teaching of the holy Fathers is that the Church existed before all other things.
          Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus writes, "The Catholic Church, which exists from the ages, is revealed most clearly in the incarnate advent of Christ".
          Saint John Damascene observes, "The Holy Catholic Church of God, therefore, is the assembly of the holy Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Martyrs who have been from the very beginning, to whom were added all the nations who believed with one accord".
          According to Saint Gregory the Theologian, "The Prophets established the Church, the Apostles conjoined it, and the Evangelists set it in order".
          The Church existed from the creation of the Angels, for the Angels came into existence before the creation of the world, and they have always been members of the Church. Saint Clement , Bishop of Rome, says in his second epistle to the Corinthians, the Church "was created before the sun and moon"; and a little further on, "The Church exists not now for the first time, but has been from the beginning".

          Pentecost was the ordination of the Apostles, the commencement of the apostolic preaching to the nations, and the inauguration of the priesthood of the new Israel. The feast of holy Pentecost, therefore, determined the beginning of the priesthood of grace, not the beginning of the Church."

          Regarding Holy Scripture, above all, the Orthodox Church sees scripture as a faith document. It presupposes the faith of the reader. The Scriptures both are the word of God and are about the Word of God, Jesus Christ. They are God's revelation of himself, the word of God in the words of men. The Bible is a witness to the revelation of God, and it is a part of the active and living Holy Tradition of the Church. Thus, if Tradition is the life of the Church, then the Scripture is the primary language of that life.

          However, as you say there is no scientific evidence that it is the word of God. It is a faith document—not science, philosophy, history, archaeology, literature, ideology, or biography. Because of its origins and usage in the community of faith, it does not attempt to establish its own authenticity or to prove its basic assumptions. It was not intended as a logical proof for the existence of God or for the reality of that to which it attests.

          So I suppose the answer to Kitty's question of why people believe/should believe it is the word of God is in one word: faith.

          No-one is, or certainly they should not be, forcing you to believe what  Christians believe. That said, I strongly feel that a syncretist view that God is essentially who we want Him to be can be very dangerous and confusing territory to wander in. However, you are given free will and you will and must do what you feel is right. I wish you grace and discernment and God's love on your journey!

  26. Huw Watkins profile image61
    Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago

    I think much of what Kitty is asking in the original thread is very well answered in the paper "How to read the Bible" by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, reproduced online here:


    It really is a fantastic read.

    Another excellent summary regarding the Bible and revelation can be found here:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KAh … CBwQ6AEwAA

  27. Huw Watkins profile image61
    Huw Watkinsposted 21 months ago

    This video gives a very nice simple overview of the history leading up to the council of Nicaea. I can't say that I really subscribe to the tone used by the narrator - it almost feels a little bit like a conspiracy theory video in places, however the facts are accurate:


  28. Jerry Hulse profile image77
    Jerry Hulseposted 18 months ago

    We can build a satellite and control it from Earth, we can also fly a drone from our hand what makes u think God cannot get his word to us when it was written on three continents during three different time periods and they all agree.
    Don't u know there is a place in man that he tries to fill and is never successful until he meets the Savior of all mankind?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Or at least until he satisfies himself that there IS a savior, and one that loves him personally and will care for him forever.  Doesn't have to be true - a mere belief is sufficient to satisfy the need.

      Of course, most of humanity has no such need, but it is there in a great many.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      What makes you think all the biblical authors all agree?

      The Torah says here's a load of laws, Jesus says they all still apply, but Paul says they don't matter anymore, as does the church.

      Joshua said ethnic cleansing and genocide are good if the local pagans won't follow your God, but Jesus said peace and love.

      God told Abraham that when he died he would be at peace resting with his fathers who happened to have been idol worshippers, yet Revelation says his fathers will burn in hell.

      2 Samuel says God incited David to take a census but in 1 Chronicles it says Satan incited him.

      Demons virtually don't exist in the old testament but in the new testament there are thousands of them everywhere.

      Matthew, Mark, and Luke say Jesus celebrated passover before his crucifixion but John days he was crucified 2 days earlier.

      Revelation uses Babylonian Astrological imagery for the four living creatures. Go figure.

      These are just the ones of the top of my head but Google bible contradictions and you'll find loads more with bible verses for you to check yourself.

  29. word55 profile image82
    word55posted 18 months ago

    It must have followed God's inspiration because the Bible works for His believers.

    1. Jerry Hulse profile image77
      Jerry Hulseposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Amen Brother, Look at all the changed lives.

  30. willmcwryter profile image54
    willmcwryterposted 10 months ago

    does anyone NOT realize that teh bibble was made up by bunches of people a long time ago over hundreds of years and is a big book of storries??

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000, a RESOUNDING THANK YOU!

    2. Oztinato profile image84
      Oztinatoposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Historians, anthropologists, scientists, psychologists, and archaeologists all agree the old and new testaments are of extreme value. Historical events, real places, real personages, stories, poetry, symbols, literature, etc give valuable insights into history and human nature.
      Only certain modern day atheists can't appreciate the subtle historical truths contained in ancient scriptural writings. Often such rare persons can't spell correctly or understand basic history.

  31. Oztinato profile image84
    Oztinatoposted 10 months ago

    As archaeological documents go the Bible rates very highly on authenticity. In fact the New Testament is extraordinarily highly rated on authenticity tests .
    Even without any religious or spiritual beliefs this means it has huge anthropological and historical significance. Even atheists study history and anthropology. Perhaps when it comes to the Bible certain lower grade atheists put history and commonsense aside for personal unscientific reasons. Any bells ringing other than Xmas bells?

  32. Kiss andTales profile image30
    Kiss andTalesposted 9 months ago

    You speak truth LtoL.