What bible?

If you understand the basic premises of the Bible, you see that there is a struggle between good and evil going on.

If that is so, the forces of evil have vested interested in confusing the understanding of God's message to mankind.

So establishing false religions that twist what God has said and make it seem like God is behind their hatred, prejudices and oppressive teachings, would be an obvious tactic for the forces of evil.

Thus people are mislead into these false religions and away from true religion and many are turned away from religion altogether.

 

Well this all sounds more like humans directing things than God.

 

Yep, false religions are directed by humans, with a little help from Satan.

 

Since the bible was put together in the late fourth century and all the books are still present (in Catholic bibles, protestants decided to remove seven and parts of two others from the Hebrew testament) I'm not sure what you mean. I have to assume you are referring to other writings that never were part of the bible and saying they.. um... were. You should rephrase your premise. Perhaps what you mean to ask is: Why weren't said writings included in the bible? There is a simple answer to that as well.

 

Yes, my question should have been "why were certain things left out of the Bible"?
Also, who decided to put out such a book, and more importantly, what gave them the authority to make such decisions?

 

The early Church leaders essentially chose the books as the ones that most aptly adhered to what was already believed by Christian tradition, particularly in terms of faith and morals.

The bishop of Rome, along with many Catholic theologians from both the west and orthodox presided over the decision making; the de facto leaders of Christianity at the time. Even then there was a great deal of confusion over doctrine, just as there is today. So essentially, it is very difficult to look back and say "Yeah sure, they certainly had the authority."

 

I am so glad you did not say it was Constatine. Sheesh.

I am curious though why you needed to include the words "de facto" when speaking of the bishops. By their very nature, bishops of local Churches were the leaders, and at this point in history were elected by their respecive congregations.

I'd also argue that there was not necessarily confusion over doctrine, but that just as there is today there were a few who distored the Word in order to create their own doctrines. The authority of the bishops comes from the Holy Spirit when they speak united on a matter of faith or morals. Also, the canon reflects what was being used during worship (Mass) at the time; the logic being "If we read it, we beleive it and it is good. If it is good and holy, it is canon". Some bishops did not initially want the Epistle to the Hebrews or Revelation included.

 

I agree with all of that Ukr, I'm just not sure many others would be convinced without posting sources, something I didn't feel like doing. (Not to mention you may be setting off a Catholic/Protestant debate here, something I was trying to avoid. Have at it though!) Thanks for clarifying everything.

 

Naw, pretty well everyone here who is an active Christian knows my view-points and I generally theirs. I tease OWB for being a modern Arian, and I am a silly Trinitarian to him.

If rambleON ever returns then basically I am a Babylonian Satan worshiper dressed in Roman clothes whislt offering prayers to the Goddess

there are times we get spirited, but it is simply by the virtue that we hold these beleifs deeply and they are important to us. I do not think I have every really been offended by anything a Protestant has told me, and I assume likewise for them.

 

You're darn tootin' you are!

I thought only bishops and the pope wore the funny hats?

I agree, mainly I use the forums as an opportunity to better understand my beliefs and those of others. Some discussions have shown me insight into why I believe what I believe and have also lead me to readjust some nuances of my beliefs to closer align to what I believe the Bible says.

Truthfully before I talked with you, I believed that most of what Catholics believed was absurd nonsense but now I see there are good reasons for the nonsense you believe.

But leaving aside the major doctrines, I appreciate a lot of your deeper thoughts on God and the Bible and we seem to agree more often than not.

 

The Bible is a good read however; as I see it, as other publications, a reference book to guide and assist in one's credo of choice.
Writen by those 'who could' write - re-writen through the years, interprepted by those who could - One is concerned about the contradictions (i.e. "An eye for an eye" v "Turn the other cheek")
however
It is the preferred choice of each individual and if it finds you solace = Bless

 

Priests do not get hats, unless you count these:

Thes are generally not used now except by more traditional priests.

Thanks for the compliment.

Bp. Fulton J. Sheen who was a fairly famous radio personality back in the day once said there are no more than 100 people in the USA who hate the Catholic Church, though there are a multitude more what the misbelieve the Church to teach.

 

Oh I count everything, although I didn't originally mention priests.

I truly appreciate our discussions.

I dislike religions that are not internally consistent and I had thought of Catholicism that away but you showed me that if you accept that the authority of the apostleship has descended unbroken to the Catholic church, then it is internally consistent or at least a lot more than I thought so.

Sorry, as you know, I just don't accept that premise.

 

You guys are cracking me up

:smilielol5:

 

I have learned since posting this thread that it doesn't matter which bible, deleted books or not, none of it is true, it's all just paganism adapted for optimal controlling of people. The fact that there were so many versions in the first place should have alerted me sooner, seeing as how these vastly different things were believed not long after the supposed death of Jesus. A real happening wouldn't allow for such confusion only decades later. It would have still been within collective memory and recorded on a vast number of documents, especially something so amazing.