The Conservative Bible Project

[Felch]

No, but you don't have any evidence either it wasn´t altered to fit the needs of the Roman Church. Which IS the entire point.

That's a weak point. If you're going to accuse somebody of altering a document, you ought to provide some evidence.

[Jon Miller]

Such as the non-Chalcedonians? They were a part of the church, along with everyone else at one point.



Not really. It was an innovation by the Byzantines who wanted a pope of their own. No different then when Henry VIII wanted to be his own pope.

Read about the Mar Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Thomas#Arrival_of_Saint_Thomas

There were Christians who spread the word of Christ in India with no contact with the Med. church leaders until 300 AD.

In other words, probably before Peter ever became a bishop in Rome they were started, and in all of that time (until ~300 AD) they had little-no contact.

They are Christians like the rest of us. Actually, they provide some evidence against my position, that Saturday is the correct day.

Of interest, they were quite democratic initially (and afterwards), unlike many of the churches in the Med area.

And you, Ben, and others ignore that the Syrian church (and Mar Thomas, and others) has just as much a claim to being the Catholic church as the RC or Orthodox.

JM

[Dinner]

No problem! What every Jesus said that we don't like we will just edit out.

[/idiot]

[dannubis]

That's a weak point. If you're going to accuse somebody of altering a document, you ought to provide some evidence.

There is something around 500 years between the first selection of scriptures that we call the bible and the life of Christ... You do the math, but I wouldn't take what is written at face value.

[Ben Kenobi]

There were Christians who spread the word of Christ in India with no contact with the Med. church leaders until 300 AD.

The whole claim of the Mar Thoma Church is based upon the Apostle Thomas, who most certainly did know Apostle Peter prior to his missionary journey to the east.

In other words, probably before Peter ever became a bishop in Rome they were started, and in all of that time (until ~300 AD) they had little-no contact.

The primacy of Peter dates to before the death and resurrection of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter's appointment as Bishop of Rome was a fair bit later as you are correct to note. The pope has not always been bishop of Rome, but he has held the title of Bishop of Rome, since Peter took that as his apostolic see. Had Peter chosen Jerusalem, it would have been Jerusalem. His primacy had already been established at that point and before the mission activity of Apostle Thomas to the east.

Thus, the Mar Thoma church is in communion with Catholicism, but of a separate rite apart from the Latin Rite.

And you, Ben, and others ignore that the Syrian church (and Mar Thomas, and others) has just as much a claim to being the Catholic church as the RC or Orthodox.

It may happen in our lifetime, but all three are in Apostolic Succession, and the divisions are man-made between all three. I don't see it as the 'Orthodox' are more right then the other, there is just one church, of which all three are a part.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is something around 500 years between the first selection of scriptures that we call the bible and the life of Christ... You do the math, but I wouldn't take what is written at face value.

That is true that the first compilation of scripture was in the Vulgate, which was published around 400 AD, but the original books were written much earlier. We have evidence from the early church fathers who quote them throughout their works.

Polycarp's Epistle of the Philippians, which was written sometime between 108-135 has scriptural citations throughout.

http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm

Most of the documents in scripture are considered to be written well before this date, with the Epistles in the 50's, and the gospels somewhat later (60s-70s), and the Gospel of John in around 90 or so. They were written by eyewitnesses to Christ, which is remarkable given the date.

For example, lets compare this with the accounts of Julius Caesar. We have Seutonius ("Lives of the 12 Caesars") dated to 120 AD, which is 170 years after the death of Caesar. We have Appian's "The Civil War" dated to 150 AD, we have Plutarch's "Lives", which is about 90 AD, we have Cassius Dio "History of Rome" in 220. Those are the only references still extant, and none of them were written by eyewitnesses of Caesar.

The only source that does date back to Caesar's time are his 'Commentaries'. The oldest manuscript we have of the Commentaries, dates back to 900 AD. In comparison, we have two different manuscript versions of Scripture, that both date to around 350 AD. After that we have copies of the Vulgate.

Not only do we have more eyewitness accounts, we can be sure that the extant manuscript evidence is closer to the original, even with someone as notable as Julius Caesar, one of the best attested lives in all of Antiquity.

[Wezil]

This guy has the right idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like how the good pastor is wearing overalls. That's not stereotypical at all

[Jon Miller]

There is something around 500 years between the first selection of scriptures that we call the bible and the life of Christ... You do the math, but I wouldn't take what is written at face value.

You obviously don't know what the discussion was about.

We can look at many of the texts which were not included. Most of those were ones which were of groups that believed differently. They would possible be scriptures of Christian Gnostics or something, but not the scriptures of traditional Christians.

Additionally, in many cases they aren't nearly as well dated. Most of the NT can be dated to the first 50 years after Christ's death, and the rest to within 100 years after Christ's death. This isn't the case with many of the texts which were not included.

Finally, as noted, most of those not included were very aligned with groups that believed very different things than Christianity has for most of the last 2000 years. A casual study of these groups beliefs show obvious strong influences by popular Greek and Roman philosophies. In such cases the obvious conclusion is that the groups were results of a mixture of religions from Greek philosophy and proto-Christian sources. The obvious conclusion is that the texts were written under the influence of mixed-proto-Christian theologies which explain the differences nicely.

And yeah, I know that Greek ideas influenced the fledgling Christian church.

JM

[Jon Miller]

While I think the dates that Ben gave are correct, some scholarship disagrees with him. All dates I have seen lie before 140 AD, with some being well before that date.

JM
(And no, scholars who think the earlier dates are correct don't think so because they believe.)

[MRT144]

The Synoptic Problem is hella interesting.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yep, and most Anglican books have already been 'feminised' so perhaps that's why the good doc hasn't noticed any changes.

Edit, grrr. Meant to say 'Original Greek and Hebrew'. I be sleepy this am.

We read three passages every Sunday. I've been going solidly for about 15 years. I haven't seen any "feminised" passages so I don't know what you're talking about. When did you last attend an Episcopalian or Anglican service?

[Ben Kenobi]

We read three passages every Sunday. I've been going solidly for about 15 years. I haven't seen any "feminised" passages so I don't know what you're talking about. When did you last attend an Episcopalian or Anglican service?

At my father's funeral.

We specifically avoided passages that have been altered for 'inclusive' language, recommended by the lesbian lady who claimed to be a priest. 15 years? So you've been going since '94 eh. I can remember what it was like in the 80's, and it's different now.

[Dr Strangelove]

At my father's funeral.

We specifically avoided passages that have been altered for 'inclusive' language, recommended by the lesbian lady who claimed to be a priest.

And just which passages were those? Perhaps we need a sample of what exactly you conmsider feminised. Which book was it? I realise that the Church of Canada probably uses a different service book than the Episcopla Chuirch, but I really don't know.

How do you know that the female priest was a lesbian, or do you just assume that all female priest are lesbians?

[Ben Kenobi]

The lady who claimed she was a priest spoke about how she and her 'partner' sympathised with what my mom was going through when we met with her.

And just which passages were those? Perhaps we need a sample of what exactly you conmsider feminised. Which book was it? I realise that the Church of Canada probably uses a different service book than the Episcopla Chuirch, but I really don't know.

Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created people in our own image,
in the image of God we created them;
male and female we created them.

Stuff like that. Changing gender of God to either /him to /her or avoiding it all together.

I believe it was the "New Living Translation".