Which Bible did the Apostles use?

[dunkel]

I apologize for my delay in responding to you. We've likely reached a point pretty close to the end of this discussion anyway. I think we've acknowledged those areas where we're in agreement, and will have to agree to disagree on anything that may remain.

Ok

Sure, dunkel, but I think this would have happened anyway. It wasn't the ascension of a Christian (or pseudo-Christian, as you would have it) emperor that motivated the Church to compile and canonize the NT writings, but rather--as was common--creeping heresies. For instance, the Council of Nicea was convened to deal with the christological heresy of Arianism. The writings of the NT were officially canonized--and were pointedly included with the OT--to deal with the Marcionite heresy.

I don't think I've made my point clear on this. It happened under Constantine's rule. Whatever the motivation was, whether it was specific heresies or the fact that they had a supporter on the throne, it was Constantine's policies that made it possible.

Are you claiming Constantine was not a Christian because he hadn't submitted to baptism until on his deathbed? Because... (see below)

I'm claiming that this is evidence that he wasn't quite ready to take the plunge.

Very true. But let us remember that he was reigning over an empire that was still largely pagan, multicultural, and very religious. As ruler, he had to practice as much realpolitic as he did his faith.

That's been my point all along. He was, above all, a politician. He was thinking politically when he supported the pagans and he was thinking politically when he supported the Christians. To attribute his generosity towards the pagans as merely political, but his support of the Christians as an indication of his faith, I think, is a bit disingenuous. I think it was pretty clear by the 4th century that paganism was on the way out (although Julian obviously disagreed), so, being a politician, he wanted to go with the winner.

Again, his move toward Arianism is true. But this was only after the conclusions arrived at by the Council of Nicea eventually failed to achieve the unity it was supposed to. In pursuing harmony throughout the empire, but lacking much theological insight, he did become increasingly Arian in his views due to the influence of the Arianizing Eusebiuses of Casearea and Nicomedia. Sure he may have been theologically naive.

What this shows is that he didn't hold any strong beliefs. He was the most powerful man in the known world, if he had truly believed that Arianism was right, for whatever reason, he could have taken measures to ensure that it won out. The fact that he didn't do so indicates that he was more interested in keeping the peace than he was in theological issues.

But if our status as Christians depended on our believing all the right things, in just the right way, all the time, then more than likely we're all in deep trouble.

I do not think I would be too terribly mistaken to say that this is exactly a basic belief for many Christians, to this day. Which denomination would say that other denominations are equally valid? Thankfully, the various denominations don't go around hacking to pieces or burning alive those that disagree with them.

That may be. But I like to think I'm a Christian. Yet I'm sure if you knew me as well as I know myself my piety would be very much called into doubt. (Heck, you probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with me.) But my life isn't put under a microscope the way the life of Rome's first Christian emperor would be.

I obviously don't know you personally, but I would wager that you have never killed any of your family members for political gain.

But dunkel, this practice wasn't exclusive to them. At this time it was common to put off baptism until just prior to one's death because it was believed this would allow all of one's sins to be washed away. This isn't something we accept anymore but it was a prevalent belief at the time. (Along a similar vein, it was reported that when Clovis, the first Frankish king to be converted to Christianity, submitted to baptism, he refused to allow his right arm to be immersed along with the rest of him. Why? Because he still wanted to kill people with his sword.)

So another ruler that wanted to put off the full effect of babtism until he was sure he as done sinning...what does this prove? Was this practice common among the peasant converts to Christianity? I've seen nothing that would suggest that it was. And even if it was, does this excuse Constantine doing it? I think putting off babtism so that you can continue to sin is a sign that you are not ready to become a Christian, whether you're a peasant or an emperor.

Let's review the facts on Constatine:

1. He was born and raised a pagan.
2. He fought long and hard to control the Empire, using whatever means necessary.
3. He supported pagans when it suited his purpose and Christians when it suited his purpose.
4. When he finally did start leaning more towards Christianity, he picked a vile heresy in which to do so.
5. He murdered family members for political gain, even after the above mentioned Christian leanings started.
6. He put off babtism until he was on his deathbed and, presumably, done sinning.

Which of these facts stand out as a strong indication that he was a true Christian? Granted, it was a different time back then, but if these same facts were true of a modern day politician (more or less), who would allow him to call himself a Christian?

 

[dunkel]

The term 'orient' means 'east', while 'occident' indicates 'west'. From the perspective of 'Occidental' Western European writers, regarding themselves as products of western Greco-Roman culture, the Orient began with the lands and peoples east of Greece. This includes Egypt, Anatolia (now Turkey), and the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc.).

But Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc, were all Hellenized.

 

[dcyates]

I'll try to respond to your post above soon, but thought I'd quickly comment on this one.

But Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc, were all Hellenized.

It doesn't matter that these lands were at one time Hellenized, they were still regarded by western Europeans as part of the Orient. India was once--and to a large degree still is--quite Anglicized, being regarded as the crown jewel of Queen Victoria's empire, but this never rendered it as thereby a part of the West. Same with Hong Kong. Likewise, lands far more east than Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc. were also conquered by Alexander the Great, and were thus at one time or another more or less Hellenized, but they were still regarded as constituting a part of the Orient. Besides all this, by the time the term 'Orient' was coined to designate those regions east of Greece, they could no longer even be considered Hellenized, or at least were only to the extent that Greek-thought had any impact upon Islam. After all, the term did not start being utilized until about the 15th-century AD.

 

[dunkel]

I guess I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the definition of "oriental" and the usage of the same word. Oriental might simply mean anything east of Europe, but there are certain attributes that make up an "oriental culture". When they referred to "oriental" ideas, they weren't trying to say "this idea came from over that way", they were saying that the idea in question had certain qualities (mysticism, aversion to religious imagry, etc).

It's like the American South. If you're standing in New York and say something is "southern", are you referring to it coming from somewhere below NY on a map or are you referring to specific qualities? When I lived in Germany as a kid, I still exhibited "mid-western" qualities, even though I was technically far east of the normal reference points. Another example was in an article I just read that had come out of Britain. They were referring to some crime committed by an "asian" gang...and then proceeded to list several criminals with distinctly Muslim names. Turns out this "asian" gang was from Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan is technically in Asia, but that is not what people mean when they say "Asian".

 

[dcyates]

I guess I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the definition of "oriental" and the usage of the same word. Oriental might simply mean anything east of Europe, but there are certain attributes that make up an "oriental culture". When they referred to "oriental" ideas, they weren't trying to say "this idea came from over that way", they were saying that the idea in question had certain qualities (mysticism, aversion to religious imagry, etc).

It's like the American South. If you're standing in New York and say something is "southern", are you referring to it coming from somewhere below NY on a map or are you referring to specific qualities? When I lived in Germany as a kid, I still exhibited "mid-western" qualities, even though I was technically far east of the normal reference points. Another example was in an article I just read that had come out of Britain. They were referring to some crime committed by an "asian" gang...and then proceeded to list several criminals with distinctly Muslim names. Turns out this "asian" gang was from Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan is technically in Asia, but that is not what people mean when they say "Asian".

Although we've certainly wandered far afield from the original intent of this thread, let me say that I currently have a student in one of my classes from Sri Lanka. For her major research paper she is comparing and contrasting typically 'Christian' marriage traditions with her native 'Asian' marriage traditions. Additionally, it seems only in the last few years that I have had several acquaintances of Indian descent refer to themselves as Asians. At first I was at least somewhat taken aback by this, so I understand what you're saying.

Nevertheless, Middle Eastern culture is widely considered oriental in that they do share common socio-cultural characteristics with people further to the east. Such as, far less recognition of the concept of individual identity and so far more of an emphasis on community and collective in-group relationships, exceptionally strong familial bonds, an extreme emphasis on the vital importance of maintaining honour (and thus the avoidance of bringing shame to one's identity group), placing a very high level of importance on hospitality, et cetra.

 

[Ahazmat]

I thought Constantine was a pagan priest of one of the Sun Worshiping groups. As such he then incorporated much of what he thought was correct into the formation of his Universal Roman Religion.
The Apostles certainly should have known a translation of the Torah from Heberw to Aramaic maybe. I have not read the rest of the thread yet. I downloaded it and will give it a read.

 

[Ahazmat]

The Bible was assembled by a commission of Catholic Bishops in the 300's. There was no Bible documented in scripture. There was nothing called the Bible when scripture was written. The Roman Catholic Church translated many works, determined which ones would be part of scripture, put them all together, and undertook the task of manufacturing and distributing them.

The JEWS had the scripture, the law, the writings of the prophets etc. before the RC Church created and distributed the work you are writing about. Further the Apostles were long dead by 300 so that is not relevant to the op.

 

[Ahazmat]

The apostles were spirit-filled men who were used to bring new teaching into the world. In the NT, even when they were referring to the OT, it was from a different angle, a messianic perspective.
They knew their OT scripture, but I have doubts as to whether or not they walked around with an OT while they preached.
The Gospel was what was crucial, not the OT.

It seems to me that without the validation of the OT towards Jesus there is no Gospel. That is unless the OT is valid and JC is also validated by the OT there is no validity to JCs teaching of the Gospel. Therefor the Apostles must have had a reference source that was generally accepted as valid. So the question of this thread, and it is a good one, what were the sources the Apostles were using to back up their teachings.

 

[PaladinValer]

I thought Constantine was a pagan priest of one of the Sun Worshiping groups.

Where did you get that idea from?

No, St. Constantine was a Christian.

As such he then incorporated much of what he thought was correct into the formation of his Universal Roman Religion.

There was no Vatican Catholic Church until 1054. The Church, with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, was One until then.

The Apostles certainly should have known a translation of the Torah from Heberw to Aramaic maybe.

The linguistical analysis proves otherwise. No, no Aramaic Gospel according to St. Matthew either. The only authentic scrolls used were Septuagints.

The JEWS had the scripture, the law, the writings of the prophets etc.

No, actually, the Jews didn't formalize their canon until 90 ce. They recognized certain books as having authority; those of the Torah and of the Prophets, but they were not considered Scripture.

before the RC Church created and distributed the work you are writing about.

That doesn't matter; what the Jews do doesn't affect Christians.

Further the Apostles were long dead by 300 so that is not relevant to the op.

That fact there isn't relevent either.

It seems to me that without the validation of the OT towards Jesus there is no Gospel.

Um, no. That isn't logical. Just because something isn't considered valid yet doesn't mean it wasn't valid to begin with. Awareness doesn't equal truth...truth equals truth.