Books left out of the Bible

[YHWH_will_uplift]

Like I said before, the church could have deliberately left out certain books etc as it didn't fit in with how they wanted people to think or believe.

Has Christianity gone the way the God has wanted?

Yes I whole heartedly agree with you here brother. Anyone guilty of doing such a sin is no better than the serpent who got Eve yup question the authority of God's Word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wiki may not be an authority, but it does consolidate from many sources that can be verified by the reader.

Constantine the Great, who along with Licinius had decreed toleration of Christianity in the Roman Empire by what is commonly called the "Edict of Milan",[12] and was the first Roman Emperor baptized, set precedents for later policy. By Roman law the Emperor was Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) of all recognized religions in ancient Rome. To put an end to the doctrinal debate initiated by Arius, Constantine called the first of what would afterwards be called the ecumenical councils[13] and then enforced orthodoxy by Imperial authority.[14]

The first known usage of the term in a legal context was in AD 380 by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[15] which made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as "heresy". By this edict the state's authority and that of the Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and state was the sharing of state powers of legal enforcement with church authorities. This reinforcement of the Church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.- From Wiki on "heresy".

Apocalypse of Peter:
"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."

I see the scripture as truth.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was asking. Here is your claim:

"I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them."

I was asking you when this happened. Your quote from Wikipedia doesn't address my question.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jaybird88]

i read that Constantine mother was the true influence on the direction of Christianity. i dont think Constantine cared what religion everyone followed.
does anyone know what sect of Christianity she belonged to?

 

[ViaCrucis]

i read that Constantine mother was the true influence on the direction of Christianity. i dont think Constantine cared what religion everyone followed.
does anyone know what sect of Christianity she belonged to?

Helena was a catholic Christian in a time of immense theological conflict on account of the Arian controversy; I don't know if it's possible to ascertain her precise thoughts on the Christological debate, she passed away only a few short years after the Council of Nicea and the debate was still very much raging at the time.

Understand also that both the pro-Nicene party and the Arian party regarded themselves as catholics. The debate wasn't between competing churches, it was a debate between competing Christologies.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phantasman]

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was asking. Here is your claim:

"I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them."

I was asking you when this happened. Your quote from Wikipedia doesn't address my question.

-CryptoLutheran

Perhaps you do not understand the answer.

What I posted gives date, names and actions. I am not a teacher.

Edit: Do you understand this statement on "heresy" in the post?

This reinforcement of the Church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.- From Wiki on "heresy".

So we have the new church murdering people. No better than the Muslims theology.

John:
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Orthodoxy is a kingdom of this world. And murderers (others) to keep it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps you do not understand the answer.

What I posted gives date, names and actions.

What you gave points to the intertwining of Church and State under Constantine which was further intensified and made official under Theodosius; in which heresy effectively became a crime against the state.

Missing, quite spectacularly here, is that "the Roman Church" then went on some spree destroying books that it disagreed with.

Not to mention that these sorts of conspiracy theories seem to forget that there were Christians living outside of the Roman Empire. It would be nice if someone would--who adheres to this kind of conspiracy theory--would explain how Romans bishops and Roman emperors managed to force churches completely outside Rome and never under the episcopal jurisdiction of Roman bishops managed to confess the Nicene Creed and share in the basic consensus of Christian doctrine and biblical Canon. How, exactly, did Constantine or Theodosius or the Pope or any other civil or ecclesiastical figure of prominence manage to force the entire Church in Armenia or Persia? And obviously this kind of control didn't exist, or else the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms wouldn't have occurred.

I am not a teacher.

I'm not asking you to be a teacher, but I am expecting you to at least be a decent student and make an effort to back up your claims with something more than bare assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jaybird88]

Helena was a catholic Christian in a time of immense theological conflict on account of the Arian controversy; I don't know if it's possible to ascertain her precise thoughts on the Christological debate, she passed away only a few short years after the Council of Nicea and the debate was still very much raging at the time.

Understand also that both the pro-Nicene party and the Arian party regarded themselves as catholics. The debate wasn't between competing churches, it was a debate between competing Christologies.

-CryptoLutheran

so in the early days before there was one official church and there were many sects of Christians there was one sect called catholic before the official catholic church?

 

[ViaCrucis]

so in the early days before there was one official church and there were many sects of Christians there was one sect called catholic before the official catholic church?

The adjective "catholic" in reference to the Church refers to the Church founded by Jesus, the Church of the apostles themselves. Without sects, the Church is just the Church, and this Church is catholic and apostolic.

As a Lutheran I confess faith in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I am a catholic Christian. As such I am claiming to be part of the faith of the apostles, their successors, and the generations of faithful Christians down through the ages.

This is also what Roman Catholics mean when they call themselves catholic, same with the Orthodox, with Anglicans, et al.

A sect, in antiquity, would have referred to a group apart from the catholic mainstream. We can apply it to, say, the various Gnostic sects, or to groups such as the Ebionites or Elchasites, we could also apply it to the Marcionites or the Montanists; it's probably not quite so accurate to apply it to inter-catholic theological parties; the Sabellians for example weren't a "sect" so much as a Christological position adhered to by some which, ultimately, was regarded as erroneous and heretical, the same with the Arians later on.

For something to be a sect it needs to be a separate, independent religious body of some sort; that doesn't accurately describe the situation we see, e.g., with the Arian controversy between the Arians and Nicenes. The Arians didn't constitute a separate ecclesiastical structure than the Nicenes or vice versa; it was a debate between theologians and bishops and churchmen from within the same ecclesiastical structure.

The United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America can be described as different "sects" from one another--separate and independent ecclesiastical institutions. The ongoing debate within Anglicanism over whether or not it's okay to ordain women represents two parties within the same ecclesiastical institution--the side that says women can be ordained and the side that says women can't be ordained are not two different "sects", but two parties holding different positions within the same group. If the Anglican Communion ultimately makes a definitive position which results in a schism or in the opposing group leaving and starting their own separate Anglican institution that would then we could speak of two "sects".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jaybird88]

If you truly want to know, you'll seek as I did.

It was done during Constantine's reign and after the Council of Nicaea.

the works of Arius and all scriptures Arius used were orders to be burned by order of Constantine.

 

[jaybird88]

The adjective "catholic" in reference to the Church refers to the Church founded by Jesus, the Church of the apostles themselves. Without sects, the Church is just the Church, and this Church is catholic and apostolic.

As a Lutheran I confess faith in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I am a catholic Christian. As such I am claiming to be part of the faith of the apostles, their successors, and the generations of faithful Christians down through the ages.

This is also what Roman Catholics mean when they call themselves catholic, same with the Orthodox, with Anglicans, et al.

A sect, in antiquity, would have referred to a group apart from the catholic mainstream. We can apply it to, say, the various Gnostic sects, or to groups such as the Ebionites or Elchasites, we could also apply it to the Marcionites or the Montanists; it's probably not quite so accurate to apply it to inter-catholic theological parties; the Sabellians for example weren't a "sect" so much as a Christological position adhered to by some which, ultimately, was regarded as erroneous and heretical, the same with the Arians later on.

For something to be a sect it needs to be a separate, independent religious body of some sort; that doesn't accurately describe the situation we see, e.g., with the Arian controversy between the Arians and Nicenes. The Arians didn't constitute a separate ecclesiastical structure than the Nicenes or vice versa; it was a debate between theologians and bishops and churchmen from within the same ecclesiastical structure.

-CryptoLutheran

why did people like the Nazarenes, the sect of Jesus, not call themselves catholic?

 

[ViaCrucis]

why did people like the

why did people like the Nazarenes, the sect of Jesus, not call themselves catholic?

Jesus didn't belong to a sect called "the Nazarenes"; early Christians were sometimes called "Nazarenes" because they followed Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There was also a much later sect by the same name. The term "catholic" wasn't a name, but an adjective. If I say "look at that red apple" I'm not saying it's name is "red apple", I'm saying the apple is red, red describes the apple. "Catholic" describes the Church, it describes a quality of the Church--namely its catholicity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phantasman]

What you gave points to the intertwining of Church and State under Constantine which was further intensified and made official under Theodosius; in which heresy effectively became a crime against the state.

Missing, quite spectacularly here, is that "the Roman Church" then went on some spree destroying books that it disagreed with.

Not to mention that these sorts of conspiracy theories seem to forget that there were Christians living outside of the Roman Empire. It would be nice if someone would--who adheres to this kind of conspiracy theory--would explain how Romans bishops and Roman emperors managed to force churches completely outside Rome and never under the episcopal jurisdiction of Roman bishops managed to confess the Nicene Creed and share in the basic consensus of Christian doctrine and biblical Canon. How, exactly, did Constantine or Theodosius or the Pope or any other civil or ecclesiastical figure of prominence manage to force the entire Church in Armenia or Persia? And obviously this kind of control didn't exist, or else the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms wouldn't have occurred.



I'm not asking you to be a teacher, but I am expecting you to at least be a decent student and make an effort to back up your claims with something more than bare assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

So, maybe you agree with Caesar or any empirical leader leading Christs Ekklesia.

The state and religion theory you proposed doesn't hold water.

On Pontifex Maximus:
With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church. Unlike the Pontifex Maximus, they did not themselves function as priests, but they acted practically as head of the official religion, a tradition that continued with the Byzantine Emperors. In line with the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, the Russian Tsars exercised supreme authority over the Russian Orthodox Church.

Separation of state and church?

 

[jaybird88]

Jesus didn't belong to a sect called "the Nazarenes"; early Christians were sometimes called "Nazarenes" because they followed Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There was also a much later sect by the same name. The term "catholic" wasn't a name, but an adjective. If I say "look at that red apple" I'm not saying it's name is "red apple", I'm saying the apple is red, red describes the apple. "Catholic" describes the Church, it describes a quality of the Church--namely its catholicity.

-CryptoLutheran

strange that no one has ever found a town called Nazareth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, maybe you agree with Caesar or any empirical leader leading Christs Ekklesia.

No, I think the intertwining of Church and State was a pretty bad thing.

The state and religion theory you proposed doesn't hold water.

Which theory was that?

On Pontifex Maximus:
With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church. Unlike the Pontifex Maximus, they did not themselves function as priests, but they acted practically as head of the official religion, a tradition that continued with the Byzantine Emperors. In line with the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, the Russian Tsars exercised supreme authority over the Russian Orthodox Church.

Separation of state and church?

Perhaps we could step back a moment and you could try to answer my question which you have so far refused to do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phantasman]

No, I think the intertwining of Church and State was a pretty bad thing.



Which theory was that?



Perhaps we could step back a moment and you could try to answer my question which you have so far refused to do.

-CryptoLutheran

Remember your post #119?
"I'm sure you are able to back your claims with sources, perhaps you could do that instead of simply telling me to go search vaguely."

If you cannot see answers provided, it tells me you only see what you want to see and continue blathering.

Good day to you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Remember your post #119?
"I'm sure you are able to back your claims with sources, perhaps you could do that instead of simply telling me to go search vaguely."

If you cannot see answers provided, it tells me you only see what you want to see and continue blathering.

Good day to you.

Your claim was that "the Roman Church" destroyed books that they disagreed with.

This was what you said: "I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them."

What you have so far provided are statements concerning the intertwining of Roman imperial power with ecclesiastical power.

Constantine the Great, who along with Licinius had decreed toleration of Christianity in the Roman Empire by what is commonly called the "Edict of Milan",[12] and was the first Roman Emperor baptized, set precedents for later policy. By Roman law the Emperor was Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) of all recognized religions in ancient Rome. To put an end to the doctrinal debate initiated by Arius, Constantine called the first of what would afterwards be called the ecumenical councils[13] and then enforced orthodoxy by Imperial authority.[14]

Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".

The first known usage of the term in a legal context was in AD 380 by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[15] which made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as "heresy". By this edict the state's authority and that of the Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and state was the sharing of state powers of legal enforcement with church authorities. This reinforcement of the Church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.- From Wiki on "heresy".

Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".

With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church. Unlike the Pontifex Maximus, they did not themselves function as priests, but they acted practically as head of the official religion, a tradition that continued with the Byzantine Emperors. In line with the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, the Russian Tsars exercised supreme authority over the Russian Orthodox Church.

Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".

At no point did any of this back up your claim.

If your claim had been that with Constantine imperial patronage was given to Christianity, and that under Theodosius orthodox, Nicene Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and that heresy became, in effect, a crime against the state then yes, these would have definitely supported your position.

But that wasn't what you said. You specifically said that "the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them" and have so far offered absolutely nothing to back that statement up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

strange that no one has ever found a town called Nazareth.

House from Jesus’ time excavated
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638
Photos: 1st-Century House from Jesus' Hometown
House uncovered in Nazareth dating to the time of Jesus - CNN.com

All of the articles are talking about the same archeological site, I figured it'd be worth offering several.

For a time some scholars did question whether or not there was a town called Nazareth in Jesus' time as the earliest non-Christian records don't say anything until around the 3rd century. But there was a community that lived there, a small and likely irrelevant village in the grand scheme of things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jaybird88]

House from Jesus’ time excavated
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638
Photos: 1st-Century House from Jesus' Hometown
House uncovered in Nazareth dating to the time of Jesus - CNN.com

All of the articles are talking about the same archeological site, I figured it'd be worth offering several.

For a time some scholars did question whether or not there was a town called Nazareth in Jesus' time as the earliest non-Christian records don't say anything until around the 3rd century. But there was a community that lived there, a small and likely irrelevant village in the grand scheme of things.

-CryptoLutheran

doesnt make sense that a town would never be mentioned in an census or historical document.
yet the Nazarenes of mt carmel , who lived at the same time, at the same place, are mentioned.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What you gave points to the intertwining of Church and State under Constantine which was further intensified and made official under Theodosius; in which heresy effectively became a crime against the state.

Missing, quite spectacularly here, is that "the Roman Church" then went on some spree destroying books that it disagreed with.

Not to mention that these sorts of conspiracy theories seem to forget that there were Christians living outside of the Roman Empire. It would be nice if someone would--who adheres to this kind of conspiracy theory--would explain how Romans bishops and Roman emperors managed to force churches completely outside Rome and never under the episcopal jurisdiction of Roman bishops managed to confess the Nicene Creed and share in the basic consensus of Christian doctrine and biblical Canon. How, exactly, did Constantine or Theodosius or the Pope or any other civil or ecclesiastical figure of prominence manage to force the entire Church in Armenia or Persia? And obviously this kind of control didn't exist, or else the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms wouldn't have occurred.



I'm not asking you to be a teacher, but I am expecting you to at least be a decent student and make an effort to back up your claims with something more than bare assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I'm still scratching my head too.

 

[Phantasman]

Your claim was that "the Roman Church" destroyed books that they disagreed with.

This was what you said: "I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them."

What you have so far provided are statements concerning the intertwining of Roman imperial power with ecclesiastical power.



Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".



Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".



Nothing here about "the Roman Church" destroying "anything not agreeable by them".

At no point did any of this back up your claim.

If your claim had been that with Constantine imperial patronage was given to Christianity, and that under Theodosius orthodox, Nicene Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and that heresy became, in effect, a crime against the state then yes, these would have definitely supported your position.

But that wasn't what you said. You specifically said that "the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them" and have so far offered absolutely nothing to back that statement up.

-CryptoLutheran

Ahhh. So now you open up.

First, whether or not they were burned, buried, confiscated or the matter of destruction is irrelevant. We know from facts that they were so prevalent that Irenaeus wrote much of his Against Heresies on them. I cannot remember every single verse or historical account of why I believe what I believe. As I said, I am not a teacher. An elder does not teach, as much as he/she helps to guide others to find for themselves. It is a greater reward for someone to seek and understand rather than follow someone who says that they did it and here are the results.

Religious historian Dr Elaine Pagels writes:

This campaign against heresy involved an involuntary admission of its persuasive power; yet the bishops prevailed. By the time of the Emperor Constantine's conversion, when Christianity became an officially approved religion in the fourth century, Christian bishops, previously victimized by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone; possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction--in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years.- The Gnostic Gospels

So now maybe we should doubt the author rather than the idea.

When one see's what I showed you in previous posts, along with other acts at Nicaea by Constantine written by Eusebius:

Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones"

The Council at Nicaea was to distinguish the one church. Mainly the Arian controversy. And Constantine made the decision:

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames, while his supporters considered as "enemies of Christianity." [49] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.[50]

So the question one must ask themselves is "Did the gnostics suffer the same fate?"

To me, all answers point to "YES".