Hi Folks..
Shiranui; Of course I addressed the OP - I said in the very first sentance - made clear distinction that the original gospel is not even to be found in the bible - and that infers logically,that other "none bible" accounts do exist,and that these would be the true originals..
Your beliefs are your beliefs, and I have no intent of disputing those with you. I would, however, like you to be properly informed about the history of the Gospels, and about Constantine's relationship to the Church.
Well,the first evidence would be hard logic itself - as simply,we have no actual copies that date from before that time - anywhere - do we..?..
We have plenty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
And as I said before, we have people from the 100's and the 200's quoting the Gospels, citing them, giving us their names. Your hypothesis that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all from the 300's is simply hogwash.
It is agreed among the scholarly community that the Gospel of Matthew is from 80-90 AD (from Wikipedia: Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE.
[2] A pre-70 date remains a minority view.
[3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.
[4] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek",
[5] he drew on three main sources, the
Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the
Q source, and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the
M source.
[6]).
Also, the Gospel of Mark is agreed by scholars to be from around 70 AD (from Wikipedia: The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.
[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop
Papias (c.AD 125) ascribes it to
Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the
apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.
[6] The book was probably written c.AD 66–70, during
Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.
[7])
The Gospel of Luke is believed to have been composed, along with the Book of Acts, somewhere between 80 AD and 110 AD. (from Wikipedia: Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 AD, although some suggest 90-110.
[18] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.
[6] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the
Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
[8]
And finally, the Gospel of John is agreed to have been completed around 90 AD. (from Wikipedia: All four gospels are anonymous.
[7] John identifies its author as "
the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with
John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,
[8][9] the majority do not believe that
John or one of the Apostles wrote it,
[10][11][12][13][14][15] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.
[16][17] According to Victorinus
[18] and Irenaeus,
[19] the
Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to
Cerinthus, the
Ebionites and other
Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical.
[20]) . . .
The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel supports AD 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.
[39] Scholars set a range of c. 90–100.
[40] The gospel was already in existence early in the 2nd century.
[41] It is thought that the Gospel of John was composed in stages (probably two or three).
[42] Since the middle of the 2nd century writings of
Justin Martyr use language very similar to that found in the Gospel of John, the Gospel is considered to have been in existence at least at that time.
[43] The
Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated to the first half of the 2nd century.
[44])
Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the Temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eyewitness,
[45] sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70.
[46] In the 1970s, scholars
Leon Morris and
John A.T. Robinson independently suggested such earlier dates for the gospel's composition.
[47][48][49]
Hopefully that helps clear up some of the misinformation you've been given.
The eldest known bible anywhere in the world,dates as said,mid fourth century..Aside from that - Im afraid to tell you as I know how you will react already - but yes indeed,the Catholic Enyclopedia does hold that quote,plus a few other illuminating facts as well of course..
Alright, then get on the real Catholic Encyclopedia and show me where that quote is.
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures , the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
Here's that quote within its proper context. Whoever originally posted that quote did a very sloppy job of editing what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually said:
Our documentary sources of
knowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly the
New Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, the
authenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as the much less grounds we take for granted the
authenticity of "Cæsar" when dealing with early Gaul, and of "Tacitus" when studying growth of the Roman Empire. (Cf. Kenyon, "Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the N.T.").
We have this further warrant for doing so, that the most mature critical opinions amongst non-Catholics, deserting the wild theories of Baur, Strauss, and Renan, tend, in regard to dates and authorship, to coincide more closely with the Catholic position. The Gospels, Acts, and most of the Epistles are recognized as belonging to the Apostolic Age. "The oldest literature of the Church", says Professor Harnack, "is, in the main points and in most of its details, from the point of view of literary history, veracious and trustworthy . . . . He who attentively studies these letters (those i.e. of Clement and Ignatius) cannot fail to see what a fullness of traditions, topics of preaching, doctrines, and forms of organization already existed in the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and in particular churches had reached permanence" (Chronologie der altchristlichen Literature, Bk. I, pp. 8, 11).
"the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
This is a complete and total hatchet job of what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually says. The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying that the
titles attached to the Gospels don't go back to the first century,
not the Gospels themselves. Allow me to put this tiny little snippet back into its proper context:
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori,
Clement of Alexandria, and
St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (
Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (
Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early
date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the
Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. . .
It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.
Now - as always in such issues - logic is our allie - fully impartial always..Its a but pointless then,relying on th eCatholics for you information - as obviously- logically- they are fuly biassed...They dont boast or flout such informarion - bu they do adimt it,if rather obscurely..
Then why are you citing the Catholic Encyclopedia like it has any kind of credibility?
I tell you clearly,the new testamant was made up at the councl of Nicea - not by any church founding father,or even a bishop - but by a Roman emporer,who saw,not spiritual concerns - but political opportunity !! Constantine,basically,ordered the various and seperate "christian sects",and made them assemble all their sacred texts that their faith was built upon...He then had his people assemble a unified doctrine from all the texts so presented - a total of 2231 manuscripts - were wittled down to make a complimentary four book narrative - and thus the modern bible was born...
The various books of the New Testament were all in distribution throughout the Christian world long before Constantine. This is a fact that we find in the writings of Christians before and after the time of Constantine.
It also bears note that the canon of the New Testament was not settled at the time of Constantine; the Book of Revelation wasn't accepted into the Greek canon of the New Testament until the 500's.
Those present - although heads of the various and often vastly different sects - were by no means the equal of the roman emporer,neither in power,status or even intelligence...He fully dominated them,it is clear..
This is patently false. Constantine may have called the Council of Nicaea, but his cousin was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a friend of Arius and a fellow believer in his heresy. Constantine later went against the Council of Nicaea, exiled St. Athanasius of Alexandria, recalled Arius, and was baptized on his deathbed as an Arian.
Nicaea dealt primarily with the
Arian controversy. Constantine himself was torn between the Arian and
Trinitarian camps. After the Nicene council, and against its conclusions, he eventually recalled
Arius from exile and banished
Athanasius of Alexandria to
Trier.
Just before his death in May 337, Constantine was baptised into the Arian version of Christianity
[33] by his distant relative
Arian Bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers.
[34] With the exception of a short period of eclipse, Eusebius enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and
Constantius II and was the tutor of Emperor
Julian the Apostate.
[35] After Constantine's death, his son and successor Constantius II was an Arian, as was Emperor
Valens.
Sabinius Bishop of Hereclea,was himself in attendance at the famous meeting,wrote down the details for the world to see..He said the following of the Nicea meeting..
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
I honestly have no idea where you get your information from. Sabinius wasn't even alive at the time of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote a hundred years
after the Council happened. He was a known liar and distorter of history, and was called out as such by his colleagues.
From Wikipedia:
Sabinus of Heraclea was bishop of
Heraclea in Thrace, and a leader of the party and sect of
Macedonius[
disambiguation needed]. He was the author of a collection of the Acts of the councils of the Catholic Church, from the
council of Nicaea to his own time.
William Cave[1] fixes the date at which Sabinus flourished as c. 425.
The church history of Sabinus was much used by
Socrates of Constantinople in his
Ecclesiastical History, who speaks of it as untrustworthy, because Sabinus was partisan, and omitted, and even wilfully altered, facts and statements adverse to his views and interests.
[2] Socrates shews how Sabinus tries to disparage the fathers of Nicaea in the face of the contrary evidence of
Eusebius, and makes no mention whatever of Macedonius, lest he should have to describe his deeds.
Baronius[3] speaks strongly of Sabinus's unscrupulous handling of history, calls him "homo mendacissimus," and suggests that
Sozomen gives a garbled account of the election of
Athanasius, "ex officina Sabini."
See clearly,the leaders of these sects,had no actual input in the formation of the "catholic religion"..They understood nothing of what was occurring,and were merely n attendance with their documents as ordered by the emporer..They did not even decide that which was to be include or discarded as doctrine - that task was given to that man mentioned above - Eusibius,an aide of Constantine..His instructions were :
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)
If Eusebius of Nicodemia truly had control over the Council, then the Trinity would have been condemned at Nicaea, as Eusebius was an Arian!
Nonetheless, you should read Philip Schaff's work on the Seven Ecumenical Councils. He extensively relies on the fullest texts of the primary sources possible, translating them all in their entirety.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.iv.html
Start from that page, and read through the entirety of the First Council of Nicaea, up until the Synodal Letter. Then come back and talk to me about what actually happened at the Council.
This was not a formation of a new spiritual truth - this was poitical maneuvering to secure power and domination..These sects were often s fiercely opposed that this first Nicea meeting soon became a riot,with soldiers beng caled in to restore order..So - we claelry have a situatin where Constantine,gathers all the enemies of his regime - he then let them fght it out among themselves as to what is deemed official scripture - as that witting down process begins and continues,it becomes bloody and violent,as indeed,its all about power and domination,and spiritual truth takes a definate second place..Then,when the various sects have agreed a managable number of manuscripts,and discarded the rest - Constantine has his own man go through them,to literally create a narrative that ties them all together as a harmonious,synchronous work...Like this man Eusibius,literally cut and paste other pre existant manuscripsts,and formed four coherant texts..
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
What evidence do you have for any of this? Here is what Constantine
actually said to Eusebius:
It happens, through the favoring
providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most
holy church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you
know to be most needful for the instruction of the
Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the
deacons of your church may be entrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!
This does not concern the manufacturing of new books. This is concerning the copying and compilation of earlier, existing works--such as the Gospels and the Epistles, which had existed for centuries at that point in time, having been composed in the late first and early second centuries AD. The only destructive things which happened as a result of the 50 Bible manuscripts being created is that idols were torn down and pagan temples were destroyed.
From chapter 39 of volume 4,
A similar change was effected in several other cities; for instance, in that town of
Phœnicia which received its name from that of the emperor, and the inhabitants of which committed their innumerable
idols to the flames, and adopted in their stead the principles of the saving
faith. Numbers, too, in the other provinces, both in the cities and the country, became willing inquirers after the saving
knowledge of
God; destroyed as worthless things the images of every kind which they had heretofore held most sacred; voluntarily demolished the lofty temples and shrines which contained them; and, renouncing their former sentiments, or rather
errors, commenced and completed entirely new churches. But since it is not so much my province to give a circumstantial detail of the actions of this
pious prince, as it is theirs who have been privileged to enjoy his society at all times, I shall content myself with briefly recording such facts as have come to my own personal
knowledge, before I proceed to notice the last days of his life.
___
I hope that helps!
