christians - what is your informed response to the following.....?

Question

"...in 325 AD, the Council of Nicea convened and decided what they thought the common masses were capable of understanding. They chose what to canonize and what to include as the "word of God" in the Bible. Arguments ensued and sections of the bible were edited and deleted, detrimental to their interpretation..."

Answer 1

You forget that the false gospels were weeded out. No where was the true Gospels edited. The council was in response to various heresies which had arose. My informed response is that you should study more.

Answer 2

God is about to reveal to mankind new knowledge in The Bible that not even the Council of Nicea were capable of understanding to edit and delete from The Bible.

Answer 3

This was the beginning of the Catholic Church when the Roman emperor Constantine (I believe) merged his pagan sun worship religion with some of the Christians that were being slaughtered. The Christians had the Bible, and The pagan church merged with them to form Catholicism. Peter was dead. They brought sun worship, the fish god hat of the pope, the giant Obelisk is now in the Vatican which is part of Nimrod. The Iris status became their co-Redeemer marry, they carried over the blood communion and confessional from their pagan roots. They adopted Dec. 25 as Jesus's B-day to show the new life of the sun after the death on DEC 21 the winter solace. The Bible was around before this time and the real Christians that didn't merge with the pagans preserved it. King James used these scrolls in the 1600's to translate it to the modern English bible.

Answer 4

What you state is true. However when they crucified Christ and he would not speek to Pilot. Pilot asked Christ why he wouldn't defend himself. [The king exalting himself thought only his power ruled.] When Christ informed Pilot he wouldn't be able to do anything unless it were granted him by God. So sure they tried or even thought they destroyed the Word of God. But because mans power in finite they failed!

To understand how Scripture was written is to understand how the Spirit of God in a man of God works. You should be able to understand this because in this day you are able to understand, how a tree grows. By this I mean we all know, it is the DNA, in the tree that determines what the tree will look like, the fruit it bears, or even what healing powers that lie within. By the tree’s appearance it is able to tell us what the DNA has revealed to it. However, the tree does not become the DNA and enforcer of how it grows; neither does the tree become greater than the DNA which would enable it to enforce how other trees grow. This is what it is like when a person is joined unto the Lord, because the Spirit that is in him [her] reveals the things that are of the Lord and he is able to reveal these things unto others. Hence this was how the Scriptures were written, due to God hath revealed them unto [his prophets] by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God [1 Cor 2:10].
Welcome2armageddon.com

Answer 5

"decided what they thought the common masses were capable of understanding."

I would say that description is one sided and severely lacking. The copies of the Bible that are now available are very reliable and the so called "lost books" of the Bible were rejected for good reason.

Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?
by Rich Deem

Old Testament - How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

New TestamentIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

Answer 6

My informed response is that Rick Richards is a tad biased. As are most who put up a web page (or write a book, for that matter) and promulgate their own take on Church history without citing reliable sources.

Answer 7

So the Bible is like a peer reviewed journal?

Answer 8

And if my memory of studying it in correct; the 'argument' was about 99+% in favor, less than 1% against what was 'canonized'.
What is your point?

Answer 9

It's only a book written by guy's who thought the world was flat. Get a grip.

Answer 10

It was a council to distort the writings of ancient semi-nomadic, Semitic, goat-herders.... I don't think it really made much difference...