• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Bible 2.0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Constantine didn't have any role in the Biblical Canon. The only contribution Constantine made was that he ordered 50 copies of the Scriptures to be made to be placed in the new 50 churches which he had built. He had nothing to do with what the contents of those Bibles contained. Also, looking at our oldest Biblical codices which date to this time, there's a very good chance that Codex Sinaiticus may be an example of what these Bibles looked like. Codex Sinaiticus shows us a New Testament Canon still in flux; as it does not contain books like the Revelation of John, but did contain the Epistle of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. So far from Constantine "freezing" anything, it may be thanks to intensified and more organized efforts to copy the Scriptures that we actually have a better snapshot of what the evolution of the Canon looked like in Late Antiquity.

Also, Constantine converted to Christianity; though his actual commitment to his new religion is up for debate. But saying he was "pagan emperor Constantine" makes an assumption about Constantine that is unjustified--perhaps Constantine did still cling to some of his pagan past, but he also seemed quite intent on showing favoritism to his new adopted religion. That's why he sponsored church building projects, it's why he personally oversaw the gathering of bishops at Nicea to address the Arian controversy.

Constantine is a complicated historical figure. And I have generally found that he is a very misunderstood figure. There are both those who want to demonize Constantine and those who want to beatify Constantine. The truth is more nuanced and arguably much less sensational: Constantine was a schrewd politician who wanted to secure and strengthen the Roman Empire. To that end his ambition led him to overthrow Maxentius in the West, and later Licinius in the East. He moved the seat of imperial power from Rome to Byzantium (renaming it Constantinople) in order to be closer to the long-time rivals of Rome, the Persian Empire (the Sassanians having filled in the vacuum of the older Parthians). Constantine legalized Christianity, and gave equal rights to Christian clergy. He also seemed to be concerned about the emerging tension in the eastern parts of the empire where the Arian controversy was erupting. Constantine was likely motivated more by desiring civil peace rather than actual theology--as he was very unlikely to have fully understood the the complicated theological issues being debated.

To speak to the latter, concerning Constnatine unlikely to have understood the theological debates of the time; not long after the Council of Nicea (which Constantine himself had personally asked the bishops to gather for), and even though the Council of Nicea declared Arius' position explicitly heretical, Constantine was convinced by several of his religious acquaintances (in particular Eusebius of Nicomedia, himself an Arian) that Arius actually didn't disagree with the Council or the Creed it produced. As a result Constantine had the rightful bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius, remembered as St. Athanasius the Great, Defender of the Faith) exiled and had Arius installed as bishop.

Indeed, when Constantine finally received Christian Baptism on his deathbed, it was from his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia (who was, as noted, an Arian, a heretic). After Constantine's death his two surviving sons were divided: Constantinius, the elder son was a devout Arian, while Constans, the younger son, was a devout confessor of the Nicene Creed. However Constantinius would eventually secure power. Most of Constantine's successors were Arians. It wouldn't be until after the death of Julian, the last of the Constantinian Dynasty, who though having been raised as an Arian came to reject the Christian religion in favor of a modified Paganism. After Julian's sudden and unexpected death, the Constantinian Dynasty ended.

Was Constantine himself a devout Christian? Again, it's unclear. Though it is telling that he chose Christian clergy to be the educators for his sons, and that even though he waited until his death bed, he did ultimately get baptized (and although he asked a heretic to perform it, it was nevertheless a valid Christian Baptism). So if nothing else, even if Constantine hadn't been a "true believer" earlier in his life, the moment he received Holy Baptism he absolutely was a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you!! Constantine is totally irrelevant to the OP, so I edited him out. Can you please respond to the main topic ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

For truth to be truth it has to be absolute and unchangeable. There have been many attempting to change the word of God. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own bible 2.0.

To take the position that the word of God needs to be updated is like trying to make your own reality. It is a poor attempt to try to be God.

There are few things as alarming to a Christian as to suggest that one can improve on or fix the word of God.

The verses applies to the book of Revelation. It’s clear why such stern warning was inserted at a time when books were hand-copied. As wee see from ancient manuscripts, copiers did sometimes take liberty to change the original texts.

When the Apocalypse of John was written in 90-95 AD, the Christian Bible didn’t yet exist
 
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
You might like to read Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History. It is a summary of church history primarily from the first century until 325 AD when he wrote it. Bishop Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to prepare Bibles. Codex Sinaiticus is one of the fourth century Bibles prepared under the supervision of Eusebius. It was discovered in a Greek Orthodox monastery in the Sinai.

Thank you! Yes, I’m familiar with the work of this church father

He took part in the Nicene council as an Arianist, he rejected that Jesus is of the same substance or HomoOusion with the Father. So he is kind of a “Jehova Witness” of the 4ty century… He was exiled for his views.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Until you are born again by believing the Gospel message you cannot understand spiritual things in the bible regardless of any "updates" to the bible or the translation you are reading.

1Cor. 2:4-5, "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
verse 14,: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can they know them, because they are spiritual discerned."(KJV)

Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever."(KJV)

Regards,

John

Absolutely. I’m proposing for the new revelations to be written by born again spiritual Christian believers. Or whatever definition and qualification church could agree upon.

The church settled the Bible 1.0, same could be done today for Bible 2.0.

Nobody can and should usurp the authority of God

He speaks. Nobody is to place a gag on Him!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
The foundation is the Apostles and Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Chief Cornerstone.

Period.

After this, there is plenty to read by many flesh driven contributors. Just beware.
Blessings

Yes, but those who wrote the New Testament were not and could not have been the apostles, as proven by Bible scholars. Shaul/Pavlos, for one, never met Christ in person.

Then later people who edited and compiled the New Testament lived centuries later, far away from Jesus and the 12 apostles.

They didn’t shy to grab the Scripture forming authority. So why are we any lesser than th?

Is our God smaller than theirs?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Constantine is irrelevant to the OP, so I edited out mentioning him.

Explaining the existing canonical Scripture is a definite limitation.
Limitation on...what? If something is complete and accurate at one point in time, what's the merit it altering it later? More than that, the problem that underlies the "controversy" here is that the Christian religion accepts and affirms that the Bible is divine revelation.

To "update" that with later religious writings from other sources defies the fundamental nature of the religion. If you are a person who really is "exploring Christianity" as one who is interested in possibly joining, this issue may be decisive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
11,277
9,329
65
Martinez
✟1,159,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but those who wrote the New Testament were not and could not have been the apostles, as proven by Bible scholars. Shaul/Pavlos, for one, never met Christ in person.

Then later people who edited and compiled the New Testament lived centuries later, far away from Jesus and the 12 apostles.



They didn’t shy to grab the Scripture forming authority. So why are we any lesser than th?

Is our God smaller than theirs?

Well, first in scripture it clearly states what I have pointed out:
Ephesians 2
Now ,therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Second, in 2 Timothy, Paul clearly carried " books and parchments" that seem to have great importance to his ministry of spreading the Gospel. I think they contained the beginnings of the NT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Limitation on...what? If something is complete and accurate at one point in time, what's the merit it altering it later? More than that, the problem that underlies the "controversy" here is that the Christian religion accepts and affirms that the Bible is divine revelation.

To "update" that with later religious writings from other sources defies the fundamental nature of the religion. If you are a person who really is "exploring Christianity" as one who is interested in possibly joining, this issue may be decisive.

I understand your point very well. It was made before and I learned it in church and in Christian books. So I understand the position. It does make sense. Nothing surprising or unusual: the Muslims proclaim Mohammed as the final prophet and his Qur’an as the universal final authority, we have the Pali and Sanskrit canons of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism, we have the Tanakh in Judaism, we have Guru Granth Sahib in Sikhism etc etc. Such approach isn’t unique to Christianity.

My question is, why. Is it really what God wants?

It’s not what was done for many centuries in Judaism and Christianity prior to fixing the canons… There were a few centuries (!) in Christianity until the NT canon appeared. Before then, there was free creativity and research, discussion, pluralism of opinions. People deny Constantine’s involvement and I perfectly understand the knee-jerk feeing towards this touchy subject, but it is true, we know from history, that proto-Orthodoxy was voted in at a time when about 40% of the empire did not believe in the divinity of Christ. The Trinity (trinitas, the triad) was introduced by Tertullian in the 2nd century CE.

In the Bible we see this process of rejection and revision of previous books: for example, Lord Jesus said Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said … But I tell you…”

Why it was okay in the past, but from some point on it was not okay? Usurping God’s truth? Dictatorship? Totalitarianism? My way or high way? Heretics to be persecuted, Anathemised and exhiled or even worse? Burnt at the stake?

Is it a matter of control? Of power? Of monopoly of spiritual thought? Concentration of clerical authority to collect money from the government and the parish?

What are the roots of this purely human decision?

Is it not deeply wrong?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I happen to love and collect old books. Far from a huge obsession, but I do love browsing used book stores, library sales, garage sales and online marketplace ads. I have a couple of really old school textbooks. So much fun.

There’s been a trend in simplifying the school cirriculum here in Canada and it’s very sad. I absolutely love pedagogy and have read a bit of books on the subject and also didactical manuals from the Ministry of Education where I live. I think I understand where the simplification stems from. However, even the simplified curricula contain more advanced knowledge and new discoveries that old textbooks lacked

Nevertheless, overall the educational system is fast progressing. If we take schools and colleges and universities as a whole. Also new fields and subfields are being created.

It’s how educational steps are being structured due to the ability and need of society. In other words, how knowledge is being spread among different strata of society…

But is there a disconnect between what is being taught and what society needs to know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Well, first in scripture it clearly states what I have pointed out:
Ephesians 2
Now ,therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Second, in 2 Timothy, Paul clearly carried " books and parchments" that seem to have great importance to his ministry of spreading the Gospel. I think they contained the beginnings of the NT.

None of these verses imply there should be a fixed canon and no more revelation is allowed. These two epistles weren’t the final ones in the NT, so after these texts were well in circulation, believers continued to write their hearts out for the church in letters… And those later letters were not thrown out from the Bible! So it was still okay then? Why not now? Are we less for God than those blessed believers of the 1st and 2nd century AD? Why? Who said so?
 
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
But is there a disconnect between what is being taught and what society needs to know?

Absolutely. And it affects the younger generation big time.

It’s the 21st century. Knowledge and philosophical, spiritual growth never stopped.

Small example. No viruses and bacterias or atoms and magnetic fields in the Bible.

The youngsters live in a global, instantly connected Earth. When they read of this tiny tribe geocoding that tiny tribe, it just doesn’t ring a bell for them… Painfully outdated. Their morality evolved.

They need purer, deeper, greater, smarter God

Bible 2.0 can give it to them!

A new, revised Jesus Christ, free of the old shameful shortcomings of humanity’s infancy
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
11,277
9,329
65
Martinez
✟1,159,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
None of these verses imply there should be a fixed canon and no more revelation is allowed. These two epistles weren’t the final ones in the NT, so after these texts were well in circulation, believers continued to write their hearts out for the church in letters… And those later letters were not thrown out from the Bible! So it was still okay then? Why not now? Are we less for God than those blessed believers of the 1st and 2nd century AD? Why? Who said so?
Out of curiosity, what more would anyone add?
 
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely. And it affects the younger generation big time.

It’s the 21st century. Knowledge and philosophical, spiritual growth never stopped.

Small example. No viruses and bacterias or atoms and magnetic fields in the Bible.

The youngsters live in a global, instantly connected Earth. When they read of this tiny tribe geocoding that tiny tribe, it just doesn’t ring a bell for them… Painfully outdated. Their morality evolved.

They need purer, deeper, greater, smarter God

Bible 2.0 can give it to them!

A new, revised Jesus Christ, free of the old shameful shortcomings of humanity’s infancy

Don't people need to feel more shame and guilt, not less?
 
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I understand your point very well. It was made before and I learned it in church and in Christian books. So I understand the position. It does make sense. Nothing surprising or unusual: the Muslims proclaim Mohammed as the final prophet and his Qur’an as the universal final authority, we have the Pali and Sanskrit canons of Gautama Buddha in Buddhism, we have the Tanakh in Judaism, we have Guru Granth Sahib in Sikhism etc etc. Such approach isn’t unique to Christianity.
My question is, why. Is it really what God wants?

There were a few centuries (!) in Christianity until the NT canon appeared.
Yes. About three. But 90% of what was canonized had already been accepted by the churches of Christendom. The canonization of our Bible was more about collecting them into one and giving the product an official stamp.

Before then, there was free creativity and research, discussion, pluralism of opinions.
Wait a minute. Yes, there were diverse opinions PRIOR to the canonization, but your proposal called for adding any number of writings yet to come and to do this over an indefinite period of time, plus treating the product as permanently open-ended.

People deny Constantine’s involvement
only because the claims are untrue. And in this very thread you already have posted " Constantine is totally irrelevant to the OP, so I edited him out."

Why it was okay in the past, but from some point on it was not okay? Usurping God’s truth? Dictatorship? Totalitarianism? My way or high way? Heretics to be persecuted, Anathemised and exhiled or even worse? Burnt at the stake?
Whoa. The issue is not as you want to portray it.

It's not a matter of freedom or tolerance or any of that. It's whether or not the church should add human insights to God's revealed word and then treat the two as equals.

Obviously, Christianity cannot be Christianity if it makes itself into Unitarianism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: James_Lai
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Out of curiosity, what more would anyone add?

Whatever God reveals for people today. I’m no scripture writer myself…

He’s God, isn’t He? If you allow Him to speak, won’t He? Through literary work as well
 
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
? But your proposal was not for adding "whatever God reveals for people today."

Why not? Return the power to God from a handful of 3rd century clergy.

If I start dictating the contents, I’m no different from those narrow-minded usurper’s if God’s truth
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Why not? Return the power to God from a handful of 3rd century clergy.

If I start dictating the contents, I’m no different from those narrow-minded usurper’s if God’s truth
You prefer the newer usurpers of God's truth, I think was the idea.
 
Upvote 0

James_Lai

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2021
1,100
265
39
Ontario
✟24,480.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Yes. About three. But 90% of what was canonized had already been accepted by the churches of Christendom. The canonization of our Bible was more about collecting them into one and giving the product an official stamp.


Wait a minute. Yes, there were diverse opinions PRIOR to the canonization, but your proposal called for adding any number of writings yet to come and to do this over an indefinite period of time, plus treating the product as permanently open-ended.


only because the claims are untrue. And in this very thread you already have posted " Constantine is totally irrelevant to the OP, so I edited him out."


Whoa. The issue is not as you want to portray it.

It's not a matter of freedom or tolerance or any of that. It's whether or not the church should add human insights to God's revealed word and then treat the two as equals.

Obviously, Christianity cannot be Christianity if it makes itself into Unitarianism.

Very good points.

I did not want to get into the Roman emperor, I tried to quench the topic, but I do not see the secular power creating the actual canon. I never said that and of course it’s nonsense. Constantine didn’t care what the Christians decide as long as they make up their mind. He pushed for a single version of Christianity and it’s what he got. If it wasn’t for this secular power push, we don’t know maybe Arianism would be the “official Christianity” of today. Or there could be multiple mainstream Christianity-based religions. Yes there was proto-Orthodox scriptural tradition early on, but there were also alternative ones, later obliterated.

Our canon is the one that won thanks to the support from the secular government. Anathemising arianists, exiling and even killing them, burning their books, persecuting anyone who professed this version, stripping defiant Arianist churches of funding etc - none of this would have been possible unless the secular power came on board….

So the way you portray history of early church and the winning canon, is skewed.

The freedom of religious thought in Christianity was crushed because an emperor wanted a strong unified empire.

Whatever happened in church history, it’s beyond the point. Because then we have the OT canon and we know for sure it didn’t take 3 centuries to form. And we very well know how the new covenant cancels the old.

So with or without alternative Christian views, there’s built-in Judaism revisionism in Christianity.

So it was okay for many centuries, but not today?

Why? Really, why? How are we less today than people 2000, 3000 years ago? They could freely think and write about God and have their views accepted by the majority, but today we have limited this right and privilege to the authors of 66 (or a little more) books only?

Is it fair? Is it not limiting omnipotent and eternally loving God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0