Origin of the Bible (Branch Thread)

[ElishaElijah]

So you're a polytheist, then. No shame there, but it's better to own that than try and go through all manner of mental gymnastics to arrive at 1+1+1=1

1x1x1

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yeah no. The recognition of three distinct persons, yet trying to pass them off as "One God", is addition and very poor math.

 

[firedragon]

Tell me you didn't read anything that I took considerable time to write out (including the very segment that you quoted), without telling me you didn't read anything that I took considerable time to write out. Very rude, dragon.

Brother. So you know its the athanasian canon. Sorry, I have a two feet tall little person in my arm so I can't type a lot. Thats why I just said one sentence. I apologise.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Firstly, I'm not an Atheist. Try again.

Secondly, "slowly forming" and "changing dramatically" is both contradictory, and nothing of what I've said here. Also try again.

The facts of church history regarding the formation of the Biblical Canon have well recorded history. The Council of Nicaea did set that canon, and chose from all available Early Christian texts what they felt conveyed their message best. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table. But thinly-veiled ad hominem is not that.

The Bible of the early church:
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus offers a list of 22 OT books accepted by the Jews which appears to match our current 39 book collection (Against Apion, 1.38–42). Josephus:: “For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured neither to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable” (Against Apion, 1.42).

There is not a single instance anywhere of a New Testament author citing a book as Scripture that is not in our current thirty-nine book canon. They had the Bible long before it was canonlized.
As for the New Testament canon, there's a collection of scriptural books—approximately 22 out of 27—being used as Scripture by the middle of the second century.
That's why I said you need to read the early church fathers. They already had most of our current Bible. It wasn't added to over centuries as you claimed.
The book of 2 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16)
The core of the NT canon was already in place long before it was official.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’d say read them again, even John 1;1-14 describe Jesus as the Word was God and became flesh.
If the truth is still hidden from you, God will have to open your eyes like He did for me and many others so you can see.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I believe that the Word refers to Jesus.

The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Jesus was not God incarnated in the flesh, because God cannot become flesh:

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

The following two verses are about God, not about Jesus. All things were made by God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

To summarize, the Word was Jesus who was a Manifestation of God.

The Holy Spirit and the Word are the "appearance of God." The Word means the divine perfections that "appeared" in Jesus Christ. That's why we have this verse further down.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word (Jesus) was made flesh and dwelt among us means that Jesus, who had previously been with God in the spiritual world (heaven) before His birth, was born into this world (made flesh) and walked among us.

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

The reason John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," is because Jesus was with God in the spiritual world in the beginning.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So you know its the athanasian canon.

I invite you to provide sources for that, because no such term (not even "Athanasius Canon") shows up.

Sorry, I have a two feet tall little person in my arm so I can't type a lot. Thats why I just said one sentence.

Then wait to reply. Never mind that you were somehow able to dissect my post into two sections, dismiss one section entirely and inaccurately attempt to refute the other, and that holding a child does not in any way impede your ability to read.

There is not a single instance anywhere of a New Testament author citing a book as Scripture that is not in our current thirty-nine book canon. They had the Bible long before it was canonlized.

There are 39 books in the Old Testament. Here we're discussing the New Testament, of which there are only 27 books even in the Protestant Bibles, and from which the early Church canonized at the Council of Laodicea, solidifying what was listed in the Muratorian Canon (10,170 HE).

And even in the Muratorian Canon, there are 59 writings concerning the New Testament and Jesus of Nazareth that are completely left out, which is what I said.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yeah no. The recognition of three distinct persons, yet trying to pass them off as "One God", is addition and very poor math.

Only shows you don’t know what you’re talking about and a lack of spiritual understanding. Even the scriptures say the things pertaining to God are foolishness to the natural man because they are spiritually discerned.
Your comments just showing that

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Poor math to try and quickly correct a claim of addition and avoid being a polytheist doesn't make you more spiritual, elijah. It just makes you bad at math.

But please, do try to explain how "Jesus (multiplied by) The Father (multiplied by) The Holy Spirit" equals out to be One God.

 

[firedragon]

I invite you to provide sources for that, because no such term (not even "Athanasius Canon") shows up.

Lol. Broooo. Quick googling is not good scholarship. No problem. Lets discuss this later.

Then wait to reply. Never mind that you were somehow able to dissect my post into two sections, dismiss one section entirely and inaccurately attempt to refute the other, and that holding a child does not in any way impede your ability to read.

Haha. I see. If that is your approach I will try and ignore the fact that you claimed the council of Nicaea decided the biblical canon and later corrected yourself, no worries. You spoke of laodicean canons. Can you give a small sample of the first canon?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Poor math to try and quickly correct a claim of addition and avoid being a polytheist doesn't make you more spiritual, elijah. It just makes you bad at math.

But please, do try to explain how "Jesus (multiplied by) The Father (multiplied by) The Holy Spirit" equals out to be One God.

Because they aren’t 3 Gods like you say so not addition. You brought up math so if you’re trying to explain God with math it’s more like 1x1x1 = One

 

[Wildswanderer]

I invite you to provide sources for that, because no such term (not even "Athanasius Canon") shows up.


Then wait to reply. Never mind that you were somehow able to dissect my post into two sections, dismiss one section entirely and inaccurately attempt to refute the other, and that holding a child does not in any way impede your ability to read.


There are 39 books in the Old Testament. Here we're discussing the New Testament, of which there are only 27 books even in the Protestant Bibles, and from which the early Church canonized at the Council of Laodicea, solidifying what was listed in the Muratorian Canon (10,170 HE).

And even in the Muratorian Canon, there are 59 writings concerning the New Testament and Jesus of Nazareth that are completely left out, which is what I said.

As for the New Testament canon, there's a collection of scriptural books—approximately 22 out of 27—being used as Scripture by the middle of the second century.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Poor math to try and quickly correct a claim of addition and avoid being a polytheist doesn't make you more spiritual, elijah. It just makes you bad at math.

But please, do try to explain how "Jesus (multiplied by) The Father (multiplied by) The Holy Spirit" equals out to be One God.

Easy. God isn't limited by math since he created math.

 

[Clara Tea]

Taking this here, from the "sex before marriage" thread.


How you came to know and understand Jesus is understood, Elijah. The facts as conveyed prior to you is that the source of this "knowledge" was pruned and cultivated long before either of us were born, so that you would arrive at exactly that conclusion. Including altering Isaiah in translation so that Jesus' coming was "foretold".


Your understanding from that Bible comes directly in the form of the message that the Council of Laodicea wanted you to receive. But I know why you won't see that.

EDIT: Corrected specific Council of which Biblical Canon was set.

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, had several daughters. One was held up as an example of chastity, and gave Christian lectures about chastity at schools. Yet, this daughter had several babies by several men.

The moral to the story is that you should do as I say, not as I do.

Perhaps it is showing that all humans are imperfect? Perhaps it is showing us that we should strive for some ideal, whether or not we make it? Perhaps it shows that we can be an example to others even though we can't even be moral ourselves?

However, if we follow those who are not moral, how can we get to our destination?

Perhaps knowledge has more to do with prunes than we realized?

 

[Clara Tea]

As for the New Testament canon, there's a collection of scriptural books—approximately 22 out of 27—being used as Scripture by the middle of the second century.

The accepted books are not nearly as important as the unaccepted. This is because we are all aware of the books that the Catholic church allows us to see. But, we are not allowed to see the ones rejected by the Catholic church, which should, also, contain the word of God. Why should a Roman church (guilty of killing Jesus...and trying to place that blame on Jews) want to restrict what we know of God?

Is the Catholic church (which is now hiding assets in bankruptcy as it is sued for hiding priests who raped little boys) really the ultimate moral authority? So moral, that they won't allow us to see the words of God?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The accepted books are not nearly as important as the unaccepted. This is because we are all aware of the books that the Catholic church allows us to see. But, we are not allowed to see the ones rejected by the Catholic church, which should, also, contain the word of God. Why should a Roman church (guilty of killing Jesus...and trying to place that blame on Jews) want to restrict what we know of God?

Because the gnostic books, which I assume you are speaking of, have no historical or apostle acceptance. They have no historical context. Where as the accepted gospels have real accounts containing details.
These were the same type of heretics Paul was already dealing with when he explains correct doctrine.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Lol. Broooo. Quick googling is not good scholarship.

I don't think you understand. Neither the terms Athanasian nor Athanasius Canon show up anywhere. It's not a thing. The best thing for your claim that turns up is the statement of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria concerning the Biblical Canon as set by the Council of Laodicea. His statement is nothing more than the first authorative statement on the canon of the New Testament as determined by the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

If that is your approach I will try and ignore the fact that you claimed the council of Nicaea decided the biblical canon and later corrected yourself, no worries.

Very rude. If I can admit when I was wrong, you should be able to at the very least own up that you didn't actually read what I wrote before you replied to it, rather than try and use your kid as a shield.

Because they aren’t 3 Gods like you say so not addition. You brought up math so if you’re trying to explain God with math it’s more like 1x1x1 = One

So neither Jesus nor the "Holy Spirit" are gods to you, fantastic. It'd be easier for you to just say "One" then, rather than display multiplication putting them on the same level as your god.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

As for the New Testament canon, there's a collection of scriptural books—approximately 22 out of 27—being used as Scripture by the middle of the second century.

Yeah, that'd be the Muratorian Canon.

Easy. God isn't limited by math since he created math.

Your god did not create math, the Sumerians developed it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So neither Jesus nor the "Holy Spirit" are gods to you, fantastic. It'd be easier for you to just say "One" then, rather than display multiplication putting them on the same level as your god.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. You just can’t comprehend that. The human mind is limited in that area. That understanding only comes from God.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. You just can’t comprehend that. The human mind is limited in that area. That understanding only comes from God.

Christians aren't the only ones with Trinitarian gods, you know. We're just honest in that it's polytheism.

 

[firedragon]

Very rude. If I can admit when I was wrong, you should be able to at the very least own up that you didn't actually read what I wrote before you replied to it, rather than try and use your kid as a shield.

Calling me rude, you just spoke of my kid. I think you have no character. Cheap, Ciao,