Until the 4th Century the New Testiment [and The Old Testiment] didn't exist in the form of Christian doctrine. They were merely a part of hundreds of other documents held sacred by early Christians.
But early in the 4th Century Constantine and the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria met in an attempt to formalize the Christian religion and doctrine. Those 4th Century men also created the Apostles Creed, defining what a Christian must believe to be a Christian.
Were those bishops and an emporer qualified to judge which early Christian documents were holy, and which were not?
They'd been arguing about the matter from the time they came out of hiding from the Romans.
Their decisions, 300 years after Jesus died, became everything we've seen since. Crusades, Inquisition. Massacres, holy wars, and Jim Jones et al.
Did they make the right choices?
2007-07-29 08:05:02 · 13 answers · asked by Jack P 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Thanks for the replies. Thumbs up to all of you.
2007-07-29 08:13:13 · update #1
You will get many answers on this, some believe this is proof the bible is not inspired, while others believe god lead these men.
2007-07-29 08:09:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It didn't work that way. By the time the Fourth Century got around, Christians had pretty much settled on the New Testament we have today. The Council only made it official. There are no "hundreds of other documents" that were held sacred by early Christians. There were other gospels, epistles, etc. out there, but most were held sacred by small groups which disappeared over time and weren't viewed as sacred by all Christians.
By the Fourth Century, the Church convened a council because six works were still in debate: Revelation, Hebrews, the Epistle of Clement (now called Clement I), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. The first two were kept, the last four rejected.
2007-07-29 15:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually I agree with you on most parts. The old testament was canon in Jamnia in Judea around 90 a.d.
The new testament was canonized around the council of Nicea 325 A.D. I don't believe in the nicean or athanasian creed but I do accept the Apostles creed but I don't think any of the apostles wrote that.
The crusades and inquisition were made by the catholic church to get the holy lands back to christian hands and make catholic lands...italy and spain pure christian.
Actually what was in Spain was what the muslims did when they occupied Spain 700 to 1492 when they were finally driven out of Spain and Portugal.
Converts are made by the Holy Spirit not by force. Yes holy wars during the reformation and split between east and west in 1054 A.D. has made the christian church more political than spiritual.
As a mormon I believe the restoration of the church was done in 1830.
http://www.lds.org
2007-07-29 16:27:23 · answer #3 · answered by Brother G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No you're incorrect. I heard this version of history before but its not true.
I am saying this not just because I believe the Bible, but I actually took a course on medeival history where we studied Christianity and how it originiated.
- For one there were not a "hundreds" of texts. There were about possibly 20 other texts.
- many of these other texts were fake because they were created by the gnostic groups which branched off from the main first group of Christians. for example Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas are two of those.
- The scriptures that the bishops in Alexandria agreed to call the official scriptures were not some texts picked by them cause they liked them.
- They had no reasons to pick some texts but not hte others.
- They picked the texts they picked because those were the widespread texts which they already knew were the oldest ones and most reliable.
- How did they know that those texts were most spread? They kept in touch with the clerics all over the area where they lived and they were the ones who were preserving the texts over many years, and they knew it was the oldest texts.
-How do modern historians know which texts are original? They looked at other old texts which were found in the same period . Those texts contained specific quotes and references to the texts which were claimed to be original scriptures. They see that they are the same and thats how they figure out which are the oldest. They also look at the amound of detail added in them.
2007-07-29 15:14:58 · answer #4 · answered by Monkey Chunks 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The books of what we call "the Bible" did not become authoritative because they were chosen; they were chosen because they were already the most authoritative. The less authoritative books and the books only recognized by one or two bishops were not included in the universal Canon. The Gospel of Peter and the Revelation of Peter were still in circulation in Europe a long time after the Council of Nicea, even though they were not universally accepted. These two books appealed very much to the Western bishops, but not to their Eastern brothers, so they were left out of the universal Canon. The Shepherd by Hermas (the brother of Pope Pius) was left out of the official Canon because it was not Apostolic, though it is found in the New Testament portion of Sinaiticus, a fourth-century codex. The list of books excluded is very long, and that is not to say that none of them contain spiritually-enriching material, but the ones chosen for "the Bible" were the most widely accepted apostolically-attributed writings.
2007-07-29 15:31:50 · answer #5 · answered by Jonathan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is the way it has been done since scholars started reviewing material for scholarly acceptance.
The Bible was originally intended as a reference collection for professors, instructors, teachers, what ever you want to call them.
When you present or defend your Masters or Doctoral thesis today the data is review by the panel and a determination is made on the quality and consistency of the data.
Unless you have an advanced degree and/or are familiar with this process I suppose it appears very arbitrary. It is not. It is a system that has worked for thousands of years and it is the same system under which Richard Dawkins defended his Masters thesis in Zoology.
If you want to believe it was arbitrary and incorrect I am more than happy to agree, you just need to start pulling all advanced degrees from everyone on the planet, start with Dawkins.
Oh, and pull patents and grant applications also since they are reviewed in a similar fashion.
Oh, and you can fire all the professors with tenure since the procedure is similar for granting tenure.
I could go on but I will quit boring you.
2007-07-29 15:21:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jesus Said Love Your Enemy, Old Testament Said, Teeth Pay With Teeth, Blood With Blood, But Jesus Said in New Testament Do Good To Others That Do Bad, So You Will Received Rewards, Because This is The Great Lesson For US, We Make Sins, But He Practic What He Said, He Sacrificied Him Self For Us, We Are Bad, He is Right, Be Want To Die For Us, Because This is Great Commandment, Love Who Bad To You, God Jesus Loves You, Best Regards EddyLim777@yahoo.com.sg
2007-07-29 15:31:30 · answer #7 · answered by eddylim777 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They didn't decide, but instead merely confirmed what was already generally accepted (not by all, but by most).
"Their decisions, 300 years after Jesus died, became everything we've seen since. Crusades, Inquisition. Massacres, holy wars, and Jim Jones et al."
You mean you haven't seen even one positive contribution made by Christians?
2007-07-29 15:23:47 · answer #8 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure who you think would be more qualified... I think someone who was aware of what the early Apostles thought about what others said and thought of different texts and what they thought Christ was trying to teach would probably be the most logical ones to follow.
And it seems really foolish to be tying the holy texts to people in power who abuse power. I think if you and anyone else actually READ and STUDIED the texts, they would realize that the actions cited have NOTHING to do with the texts.
No, ....I guess Mr. Big Bucks from Hollywood should be deciding what texts are accurate, not people who descended from the Apostles or knew them or were taught by those who taught them and inherited their teachings...
2007-07-29 15:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by dhamca 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We believe that the Bible texts are the inspired word of God. We must also, therefore, hold true that whatever they have gone through in being put together, separated and rejoined again into the final text we know today as the Holy Bible was overseen by God and we therefore have what He wants us to have in our hands.
300 years, bishops, emperors, wars, crusades, inquisitions, massacres and Jim Jones are nothing to God.
2007-07-29 15:08:59 · answer #10 · answered by lady_phoenix39 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋