Why to believe in god

Yarddog said:

That depends on which Bible that you read. The Greek Orthodox still use the same Bible as Council of Nicaea approved. The Catholic Church still has the Latin Bible, though they have translated into several languages.

Click to expand...

I addressed this in post #11. There was no Bible approved at the Council of Nicaea. As to your other point, the Catholic Church uses a number of Bibles, almost all such modern Bibles are translated from original Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts. The Douay-Rheims Bible, where English speaking Catholic fled England to publish an English version in France, and smuggled it back in, was originally from the Latin Vulgate. But it has been updated but I believe some is still derived from the Latin Vulgate. Someone with more knowledge can expound if they wish.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I say inconsitencies because the bible the Bible is anthology of 66 distinct books written over thousands of years, Because it has been edited like at The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) it decided what books would be allowd into the bible, and created the bible we read today, it is a book that has been translated into and out of 100s of languages and depending on the language one word or pharse can mean several different things.

Click to expand...

The First Council of Nicaea did not decide what books would be in the Bible, in fact the First Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with that subject. There were various people who wrote at the time about what happened at Nicaea, and one would think such an important event would warrant one of them saying it... but none of them ever make any such reference to choosing a canon.

The ultimate source for the idea that Nicaea had anything to do with the biblical canon seems to be a late 9th century work called the Vetus Syndicon (its date of composition is not certain, but it could have been written no earlier than 877 because it includes details of councils up through 877). So our first mention of this idea occurs about 650 years after Nicaea. So none of the contemporary references to Nicaea say anything such thing, nor does any writer for another six and a half centuries. It seems the one who popularized the idea was a famous French writer named Voltaire, who made a reference to such a thing (mocking the Vetus Syndicon's bizarre assertion that the canon was decided by putting the books on an altar andd keeping the ones that didn't fall off), and then people just copied his assertion. Here's a good, if a bit dated, writeup on the issue:

Valletta said:

I addressed this in post #11. There was no Bible approved at the Council of Nicaea.

Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot to point that. The Church used the Septuagint but there was no need to confirm it.

1Tonne said:

I don't think that's an accurate summary of the history.

Protestants didn't "remove" books from the Bible because they disagreed with them. Rather, they accepted the same Old Testament canon that the Jewish people had preserved for centuries. Since the Old Testament was entrusted to Israel (Romans 3:2), that carries significant weight.

The books you are referring to are commonly called the Deuterocanonical books (or the Apocrypha by Protestants). They were valued by many early Christians, but there was debate about whether they were inspired Scripture long before the Reformation. Even Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, distinguished them from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Reformers didn't remove books that had always been universally accepted. They followed the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament that Jesus recognised, while the Roman Catholic Church formally declared the Deuterocanonical books to be canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546.

So, the real question isn't, "Who removed books?" The question is, "Which books did God inspire?" That's a historical and biblical question, not simply a denominational one.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The books were indeed removed from the Canon by the protestants. The Canon was put together by the Catholic church. This is a fact. There wasn't any protestant denominations around then.

Martin Luther removed several books because they didn't fit in with his beliefs.

Many different scriptures were being used in the early centuries that weren't inspired. The Catholic church then put together Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Lost4words said:

Incorrect. The books were indeed removed from the Canon by the protestants. The Canon was put together by the Catholic church. This is a fact. There wasn't any protestant denominations around then.

Martin Luther removed several books because they didn't fit in with his beliefs.

Many different scriptures were being used in the early centuries that weren't inspired. The Catholic church then put together Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Click to expand...

You're right that the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) listed the Deuterocanonical books, and that Trent reaffirmed that canon in 1546. I don't dispute those historical facts.

Where I think we differ is in what those councils actually did.

From the Protestant perspective, the Church did not create the canon; it recognized the books that God had inspired. The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from a church council.
Also, it's not quite accurate to say Martin Luther "removed" the books. Luther's German Bible still contained the Apocrypha in a separate section, and so did the original 1611 King James Bible. He regarded them as useful to read but not as equal to Scripture.

It's also worth noting that there wasn't universal agreement in the early Church about the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, argued that the Old Testament should follow the Hebrew canon, even though he translated the additional books. So, the debate existed long before the Reformation.

Once again, the real question isn't whether a church council listed certain books. The question is: Which books did God inspire? That's the issue Protestants and Catholics answer differently.

1Tonne said:

You're right that the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) listed the Deuterocanonical books, and that Trent reaffirmed that canon in 1546. I don't dispute those historical facts.

Where I think we differ is in what those councils actually did.

From the Protestant perspective, the Church did not create the canon; it recognized the books that God had inspired. The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from a church council.
Also, it's not quite accurate to say Martin Luther "removed" the books. Luther's German Bible still contained the Apocrypha in a separate section, and so did the original 1611 King James Bible. He regarded them as useful to read but not as equal to Scripture.

It's also worth noting that there wasn't universal agreement in the early Church about the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, argued that the Old Testament should follow the Hebrew canon, even though he translated the additional books. So, the debate existed long before the Reformation.

Once again, the real question isn't whether a church council listed certain books. The question is: Which books did God inspire? That's the issue Protestants and Catholics answer differently.

Click to expand...

A non argumentative reply. I like that.

God bless you my friend.....

Lost4words said:

A non argumentative reply. I like that.

God bless you my friend.....

Click to expand...

I understand. In fact Protestants don't believe that authority, as per the Bible, was granted to the Catholic Church. Thus it is no surprise to hear Protestant scholars claim that "that council didn't have authority" or "it wasn't decided upon until Trent." Realize that those 73 books decided upon in the late 300s were used at masses for readings over the next one thousand years or so before Protestants came up with their own canon. Before that, in the earliest centuries, there were differences at what was used at mass from region to region. The books of the Bible are the liturgical books of the Catholic Church. The last NT book accepted for the Catholic canon was Revelation. Luther tried to get that and other books removed from the Protestant canon. Also know that that every Bible in Europe during those thousand years was a 73 book Bible. When Protestants produced their own version it was decided that a strong formal statement should be made at Trent. In fact councils are often called because there are challenges to Church teaching that have gained momentum.

God Bless.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I do not believe in a creator because of the bible, I could argue the inconsitencies in the bible and every other religion but that is just a waist of time. I believe because the Universe and the earth are far to complex to have come about by chance.

the universe holds mysteries that go beyond human reason and scientific understanding

So I believe in God or a creator because to not believe is just ignorant

Click to expand...

That's one very good reason for believing, or at least a good motivation or support for belief. The Christian faith fills in the gaps giving us both the reason and the grace to believe in a particularly good and loving God, one truly worth believing in, hoping in, and loving-one that not only brought the universe into existence, but makes it worth our existing in...eternally.

1Tonne said:

The books of the New Testament were already being widely recognized and read as Scripture long before AD 325. Later church councils listed the books that Christians had already accepted; they didn't invent the canon.

Click to expand...

And yet those who accepted them were also the church. The very early chuches relied heavily on oral teachings while writings, some inspired and others not, circulated among them, with no church having the complete new testament as later assembled into canon. The councils were simply that same church speaking in unified manner-and that also involved excluding certain previously accepted writings in some cases.

Hentenza said:

Nonsense. Protestants did not remove any books from scripture but merely relegated the deuterocanonical books to their own section just as Jerome did in the first editions of the vulgate. If you look at the first printings of the KJV you will find the deuterocanonical books included.

Click to expand...

How come they're not included in present Protestant bibles, then?