in the Bible?
I have read Elizabeth Claire Prophet's The Lost Teachings of Jesus: Book 2. And she cites Ian Wilson's Jesus: The Evidence as supporting text in her claim that the Bible was really "choreographed" to meet certain personal ends of Constantine.
Which leads to my follow-up question: Have i just misunderstood Elizabeth Prophet's citation of Wilson (cause i haven't read any of the latter's work). In short, what is each's stand on Jesus and the Bible? Is Wilson also against the authenticity of the Bible? Or is he for it?
2006-06-23 19:53:10 · 6 answers · asked by past_present_subsequent 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
did Dan Brown get from these people the idea of the Bible being edited and not the real words of God Himself?
2006-06-23 19:54:24 · update #1
This is what Dan Brown would have you believe, but there is no historical evidence to back him up. In particular,
1) The Council of Nicea (AD 325) did not even discuss the question of "canon" (that is, what belongs in the Bible)!! In any case, well before this time there was widespread agreement on which books were accepted (evidence going back to the early 2nd century). There is NO evidence of authorities "inserting" or "removing" stuff.
2) Not only did Constantine not foist his own view of the deity of Christ on others, ALL those at this Council (representing the viewpoing of churches throughout the Roman world) agreed that Jesus was divine! The only question was precisely how that idea was to be UNDERSTOOD.
Also, contrary to various insinuations, the vote was not even close! The Council of Nicea was almost unanimous in its final statement (two out of over three hundred disagreed... though again, they did NOT disagree that Jesus was divine!)
2006-06-25 00:39:08 · answer #1 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Constantine held the Conference of Nicea. The purpose of this was to bring the greatest theological minds of the time together to debate what should and shouldn't be in the Bible. Constantine himself was barely even involved in the process, and didn't edit the Bible. The only thing he did do was order that some copies of the current Bible be made so that the theologans could have a copy for themselves to debate with.
2006-06-23 20:03:07 · answer #2 · answered by Clay_vessel 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it wasn't fabricated. there were various sects of christianity up until that point. some believed in the divinity of jesus, others did not. the lines weren't very clear, but some of the jews who thought he was the messiah believed him to be human, and the pagans converted by paul believed him to be god, among others who thought about varying degrees of divinity. constantine and the council united all all christians by giving the final word on the divinity of christ. it wasn't so much a fabrication as simply choosing what they thought was the correct interpretation.
2006-06-23 20:01:42 · answer #3 · answered by Aleks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Virgin Birth - Was it a preconceived notion?
What is the Imacculate Conception?
An Imacculate Deception?
Did Jesus give up Saturday for us?
Jesus? Christianity? .
If Jesus died, he could NOT have been God.
Gods do not die? Do they?
If Jesus 'died' on Friday and 'undied' on Sunday, what else besides Saturday was sacrificed?
If Jesus died for our sins, there should not be any more sins, else why go through with it?.
If Jesus really DIED, he should be dead, dead, dead!
Yep! All fabricated.
2006-06-24 01:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible itself wasn't choreographed, but a lot of the doctrines were. :(
2006-06-24 00:45:30 · answer #5 · answered by ~Donna~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
checkyour history
2006-06-23 19:55:17 · answer #6 · answered by double v 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋