Is the Bible man-made, or Godly scripture?

[Diehard Otis]

To techboy:

I feel the need to respond to your post. No, I am not picking a fight or an argument. But, I do feel the necessity to respond. First off, the date of the Council of Nicea's famous & history changing meeting is 325. (Thank You--that'll teach me to post historical dates from memory)

Now let us be absolutely clear about one thing: these are FACTS. The information I posted here is absolutely true & should be taught in school. I stand by what I have posted 100 Percent!

As far as everything else is concerned (regarding the information I've provided), it's all a part of the historical record. I invite anyone to look it up for himself. I did. That's how I became aware of this information. I did the necessary digging & this is what turned up, & it helped me out tremedously. I wish the same for you, when you're ready. Best wishes to you, my friend.

[Zguy28]

The information I posted here is absolutely true & should be taught in school. I stand by what I have posted 100 Percent!

As far as everything else is concerned (regarding the information I've provided), it's all a part of the historical record. I invite anyone to look it up for himself. I did.

We have. Trust us.

[Xameil]

In other words, Xamiel might actually have a point.

QFT :laugh:

If I didn't have such an attachment to my Buddy Christ Sig I may have changed it to this :laugh:

[Xameil]

The Council of Nicea wasn't in 135 AD. It's okay, though. You're only about 200 years off...

Despite the repeated assertions of Xamiel and chomerics, among others, there is no credible evidence that Constantine (or Nicea) had anything to do with the composition of the Bible. The formation of the Canon began well before Constantine, and wasn't "officially" completed until well after.

And no, Xamiel, "I think I saw it on the Discovery Channel" doesn't count.

What does an English translation made in the 17th century have to do with anything?

How do we know about them?

The pre-feudal period?

here ya go...found an article for ya Tech...and it's not from the Discovery Channel

http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and to eliminate all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ’s church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity - the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, having three co-equal and co-eternal Persona.

And just so ya know...that came from a uber...bible thumping website...fire with fire Tech

[Xameil]

We have. Trust us.

lol one sided research....props to ya

:laugh:

and before you respond...check out the post from the Bible website I posted that pertains to you too Z

[rincewind]

Completely true. I think Z was just asking for opinions and knew this when he started the thread. We're just BSing here.

Are you suggesting Zguy and Baculus are the same person? Now THAT is a conspiracy of biblical proportions.

[Zguy28]

lol one sided research....props to ya

:laugh:

and before you respond...check out the post from the Bible website I posted that pertains to you too Z

I have been there. Many times in fact. Its an evangelical site.

I agree with what it states. But I don't see "Constantine selected the canon." or "Constantine threw out the gospel of Thomas." That is what you normally assert isn't it?

Perhaps you should read the rest of the article for clarification? Or are you trying to decieve somebody?

Rest of article

Constantine, a converted Christian (debatably), called for a council meeting to be held in Nicea with the bishops of the Christian church to resolve escalating quarrels and controversy mounting to a bitter degree of disunity amongst the church leadership and congregates concerning theological issues. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. He saw it not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine demanded that the Christians settle their internal disagreements and become Christ-like agents who could bring new life into a troubled, beaten-down empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about the unity, peace, and love, all for which Christ stands. He and the bishops had reason to worry about the future survival of Christianity within the Roman world empire, let alone the survival of his world empire. The Council of Nicea, led by Emperor Constantine, was the meeting to settle differences, to become like-minded, all to the glory of Christ.

The main theological issue and focus had always been about Christ. Since the ending of the Apostolic Age and beginning of the Church Age, saints began questioning, debating, fighting, and separating over, “Who is the Christ?” Is He more “divine than human” or more “human than divine?” Was Jesus created / made or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with Father God, or less and lower in status than He? Is the Father the One and only True God, or is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the One true God? “True God of True God”, “One Being, Three Persons”, a tri-unity called “Trinity”? Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15).

Constantine demanded once the Nicea Council meeting was underway that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a “creed” doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the “Nicene Creed,” upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines.

The New Testament taught that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped and trusted, which was/is to say He is co-equally God and man. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2.18; Revelation 22.8,9) but commands worship of Jesus. Apostle Paul says about Jesus that “in Him the fullness of Deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2.9; cf. 1.19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation just as one calls on Jehovah, Yahweh (Joel 2.32; Romans 10.9-13). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9.5). Our God and Savior (Titus 2.13). Faith in Jesus’ Deity is basic to Paul’s testimony and theology.

Apostle John’s Gospel declares Jesus being the Divine eternal Logos, agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1. 1-5, 9). That Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14.6), an advocate with heavenly Father (1 John 2.1-2), that He is sovereign (Revelation 1.5), the Rider on a white horse (Revelation 19.11-16), and the totality of the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22.13). The author of Hebrews reveals the full deity of Jesus thru His perfection as the most high priest, Melchizedek (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3), and the full humanity (Hebrews chapter 2). The Divine-human Savior is the Christian's object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who Christ is as the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Emphasis mine.

This is from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

The Council of Nicea

When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

How Controversial was the Arian Controversy?

There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection. The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History").

Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)

It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .

The Word Homoousious

The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use. The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).

The Role of Constantine

The controversy greatly agitated Emperor Constantine, and he sent a letter to Arius and Alexander in an attempt to persuade them to lay aside their differences. He wrote, "This contention has not arisen respecting any important command of the law, nor has any new opinion been introduced with regard to the worship of God; but you both entertain the same sentiments, so that you may join in one communion. It is thought to be not only indecorous, but altogether unlawful, that so numerous a people of God should be governed and directed at your pleasure, while you are thus emulously contending with each other, and quarrelling about small and very trifling matters." It has been suggested that because Constantine referred to the issue as "trifling" that he did not really understand it. Strangely, it is recorded in a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea that the Emperor suggested the key word "homoousious" that appears in the Nicene Creed. He says the Emperor explained the term as well, showing its difference from the heretical usage by Paul of Samosta. It has been speculated that the Emperor made his suggestion at the prompting of Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor's advisor and a man who was persecuted under Maximian.

Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.

It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)

It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.

Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, "When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?" and "never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church." He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens).

The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.

Emphasis mine again.

[headexplode]

I think anytime you bring human beings into the equation, whether they were divinely inspired or not, you'll get a flawed product. As we are lowly servants we can't possibly comprehend the will or words of god, and so even if he talks to us personally and tells us what to say or write, there will be, invariably, mistakes made.

[Xameil]

I have been there. Many times in fact. Its an evangelical site.

I agree with what it states. But I don't see "Constantine selected the canon." or "Constantine threw out the gospel of Thomas." That is what you normally assert isn't it?

No what I say is Constantine ordered the coucil to put the bible together. Which is exactly what the evangical site said. I don't know how many times I have heard from you guys that Constantine had no part in Nicea....when he did. You being one that has always said it...did you not, or do I need to find your posts that say he never had a part in the council?

To think that he had no say in what the council did would be foolish. To think that the council would go against what an Emporer would say would be even more foolish. So to think that Constantine would have had no say in what was included in the bible to fit HIS needs would be foolish...

[Zguy28]

No what I say is Constantine ordered the coucil to put the bible together. Which is exactly what the evangical site said. I don't know how many times I have heard from you guys that Constantine had no part in Nicea....when he did. You being one that has always said it...did you not, or do I need to find your posts that say he never had a part in the council?

Go ahead. Constantine did call the Council. It was to put to rest doctrinal differences involving the Arian controversy. I won't rehash what I already posted in the article above, it explains it quite well.

To think that he had no say in what the council did would be foolish. To think that the council would go against what an Emporer would say would be even more foolish. So to think that Constantine would have had no say in what was included in the bible to fit HIS needs would be foolish...

What would be foolish is to cling to outlandish conspiracy theories that have no historical base and to make assertions that are clearly right out of fiction.

Did you even read what I posted from Columbia University's website?

Or the article you posted for that matter? Show me where it says he wrote the Bible?

For your benefit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[4] By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).[5] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[7]

Further, you are the fool if you think that the Bishops wouldn't oppose Constantine. Perhaps you should look up what they had recently endured from his predecessor Galerius (303 AD)?

[Xameil]

Go ahead. Constantine did call the Council. It was to put to rest doctrinal differences involving the Arian controversy. I won't rehash what I already posted in the article above, it explains it quite well.

What would be foolish is to cling to outlandish conspiracy theories that have no historical base and to make assertions that are clearly right out of fiction.

Did you even read what I posted from Columbia University's website?

Or the article you posted for that matter? Show me where it says he wrote the Bible?

For your benefit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Further, you are the fool if you think that the Bishops wouldn't oppose Constantine. Perhaps you should look up what they had recently endured from his predecessor Galerius (303 AD)?

yeah because every leader who throws their weight around to get things done their way to support their belief system will admit to it openly

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

[alexey]

The New Testament was written by human witnesses of the life of Jesus Christ and compiled by descendants of those people/places.

It was actually written decades after witnesses' deaths from spoken word by people not related to witnesses and living in different places who spoke a different language.

[techboy]

No what I say is Constantine ordered the coucil to put the bible together.

You keep claiming this, and you have yet to substantiate such a claim.

Which is exactly what the evangical site said.

Where? Please quote for me the part where any of the material linked here says that Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea to put together the Bible.

I'm honestly confused, Xamiel. I have no idea where you are reading into these texts the ideas you support.

I don't know how many times I have heard from you guys that Constantine had no part in Nicea....when he did.

I don't think anybody has ever said that Constantine had no part in Nicea. I know I have never said that, anyway. That would be a stupid thing to say, since Constantine is the one who summoned the bishops.

I never even said that Constantine didn't have a huge effect on the structure of Christianity. That would be stupid too, because he certainly did, in the sense that he restructured the Church so that it was part of the State.

What I did say is that Constantine had no part in the formation of the Canon (which books were in the Bible).

Nicea didn't even address the issue of which books should be in the Bible. As mentioned earlier, it largely dealt with the heresy of Arius.

In response to this heresy, the Bishops adopted the Nicene Creed, by a nearly unaminous vote, affirming that Jesus was in fact God, uncreated.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The vote:

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C. H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Here's a list of the other issues discussed:

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.

Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.

Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.

Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.

Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.

Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.

Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.

Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.

Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.

Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.

Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.

Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.

Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.

Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.

Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.

Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.

Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.

Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

The business of the Council having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

They never discussed the books of the Bible at all, and it was never a close vote as to Jesus' divinity. Those are two historical myths. Constantine died soon after, and the councils that closed the Canon occured after that.

Executive summary: The Council of Nicea formalized the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (which almost everyone held to already), banned self-castration (ouch!), pronounced anathema on a few people and things, and went home.

The historical record just doesn't support anything more than that, and to go beyond such is to engage in wild speculation and conspiracy theory.

[Xameil]

ok from the link I provided above...

"However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical (Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.)"

OK as you ubers point out...the actual bible was not put together until 60 years after Constatine died...fine, however, the books did exist, and even the ones now deemed heretic...you know the ones the gnostic christians accept were considered. Now we have Constantine with the council of Nicea to quell the religious arguments that he fears will tear the empire apart. So, they (and I will include him in there) come up with the Nicene Creed. This creed establishes one viewpoint. The bible 60 years later is then put together based off this creed. Constantine handpicked these bishops.

So do you honestly think that Constatine had no say (even if he was dead when it was finally put together) in what the contents of the bible were?

[Chachie]

Are you suggesting Zguy and Baculus are the same person? Now THAT is a conspiracy of biblical proportions.

Oops. I edited that post. My badness.

[Zguy28]

It was actually written decades after witnesses' deaths from spoken word by people not related to witnesses and living in different places who spoke a different language.

Sorry to hear that. I have no reason to doubt that the books of the NT were written by who they say they were written by.

Paul says in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The bold is my emphasis.

And of course we have Peter (an original Apostle) who said in his second epistle:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

But, I don't expect you to even remotely entertain internal evidence. So carry on.

[Chachie]

It was actually written decades after witnesses' deaths from spoken word by people not related to witnesses and living in different places who spoke a different language.

So there you have it.

[alexey]

Sorry to hear that. I have no reason to doubt that the books of the NT were written by who they say they were written by.

Doesn't it say Gospel "according to" rather than "written by"?

[chomerics]

Despite the repeated assertions of Xamiel and chomerics, among others, there is no credible evidence that Constantine (or Nicea) had anything to do with the composition of the Bible. The formation of the Canon began well before Constantine, and wasn't "officially" completed until well after.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, and failing miserably in doing so. . . I have never said Constantine "wrote" the bible. . .in fact what I stated was that he, along with other leaders, decided what exactly went into the New Testament, and how it would be portrayed. If you want to think that is saying that Constantine "wrote the bible" you are entitled to your opinion, you would be wrong, but it is still an opinion. . .

And no, Xamiel, "I think I saw it on the Discovery Channel" doesn't count.

Funny, but I trust things I see on the Discovery Channel a heck of a lot more than I trust things read in the bible. . .but hey, that's just me a kooky non believer in a magical man who nobody has ever seen.

[chomerics]

I have no reason to doubt that the books of the NT were written by who they say they were written by.

Just curious Z, but what do you think about the gnostics and their versions of Christ? What do you think about the relationship of Mary to Christ, and why do you think she was mentioned in the New Testament.

[chomerics]

ok from the link I provided above...

"However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical (Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.)"

OK as you ubers point out...the actual bible was not put together until 60 years after Constatine died...fine, however, the books did exist, and even the ones now deemed heretic...you know the ones the gnostic christians accept were considered. Now we have Constantine with the council of Nicea to quell the religious arguments that he fears will tear the empire apart. So, they (and I will include him in there) come up with the Nicene Creed. This creed establishes one viewpoint. The bible 60 years later is then put together based off this creed. Constantine handpicked these bishops.

So do you honestly think that Constatine had no say (even if he was dead when it was finally put together) in what the contents of the bible were?

Nice Synopsis Xam, pretty much spot on.

[Xameil]

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, and failing miserably in doing so. . . I have never said Constantine "wrote" the bible. . .in fact what I stated was that he, along with other leaders, decided what exactly went into the New Testament, and how it would be portrayed. If you want to think that is saying that Constantine "wrote the bible" you are entitled to your opinion, you would be wrong, but it is still an opinion. . .

Well if you look what else I posted...he may not have been alive when they put it together...but he obviously had a hand in it due to policies he wanted.

Just curious Z, but what do you think about the gnostics and their versions of Christ? What do you think about the relationship of Mary to Christ, and why do you think she was mentioned in the New Testament.

lol oh he has documented them several times...they are heretics, and need to be saved...lol.

[Xameil]

Nice Synopsis Xam, pretty much spot on.

Thanks Chrom I do my best

[Zguy28]

Doesn't it say Gospel "according to" rather than "written by"?

Yes.

[techboy]

It was actually written decades after witnesses' deaths from spoken word by people not related to witnesses and living in different places who spoke a different language.

Really? You know when all the witnesses died? Interesting.

Anyway, this statement is demonstrably false. Let's look at the facts.

Zguy28 already quoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, wherein Paul asserts that many of the eyewitnesses are still alive at the time of his writing (in the 50s A.D., so only about 20 years after the events in question).

Further, that formula is actually much closer to the event than that, as Dr. William Lane Craig notes in Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

Surely you're not going to suggest that every witness was dead within 5 years of the Ressurrection?

Further, the passion story in the Gospel of Mark can be dated to within 7 years. From the same article:

(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

( The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.

Now, to be fair, some scholars do dispute the conclusions of Pesch, arguing that not naming the high priest could have been due to a desire not to get on the wrong side of a very powerful family. However, even in disputing this, they still place the writing as very early. From an article on the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative

Theissen writes: "If we are correct in our hypothesis of protective anonymity, the location of the Passion tradition would be unmistakable. Only in Jerusalem was there reason to draw a cloak of anonymity over followers of Jesus who had endangered themselves by their actions. The date could also be pinpointed: parts of the Passion account would have to have been composed within the generation of the eyewitnesses and their contemporaries, that is, somewhere between 30 and 60 C.E."

Emphasis mine.

Further, even if one uses the most critical of datings by scholars, we see that the first texts of the New Testament were composed in the 50s A.D., with the latest in the 90s (and many scholars place the works much earlier), which makes the idea that all the witnesses were dead unworkable (they all died within 20 years?)

Finally, I am currently reading a provocative new book by Dr. Richard Bauckham, called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

Here's the blurb:

This momentous book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus. Noted New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as anonymous community traditions, asserting instead that they were transmitted in the names of the original eyewitness.To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, the use of personal names in first-century Jewish Palestine, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, proposing instead the Jesus of testimony as presented by the Gospels.Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is a groundbreaking work that will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.

It's Dr. Bauckham's assertion that traditions were transmitted in the name of a witness or witnesses, and so these witnesses could act as a check on inaccuracy and as verifiers of stories.

Now, this is a relatively new book, so it remains to be seen how much, if any, of it makes its way into acceptance within the mainstream of academia, but it is a very persuasive treatment.