Buffman

tragic_pizza

The Bible's main focus, at least in the new Testament, appears to be giving up one's "rights" in the interest of bettering the lives of others. That is, after all, what we Christians believe that Jesus did...

That may be how the NT appears to you. However, it appears to me that the humans who decided which books were divinely inspired, and which were not, were the people who were attempting to tone down the major part of your Holy/Sacred books (all of the OT) of your so-called Holy Bible. They had to change the image of a jealous, vengeful, murderous, tyrant God into one more acceptable to an uneducated, gullible and superstitious herd of blind faith followers. Obviously they were quite successful in accomplishing their goal. Today their only major enemies are accurate education, scientific methodology, the critical thinking process and other faith beliefs. Or so it seems to me.

Hmmmmm? Why does it seem like giving up one's rights for a better life is the prerequisite for biblical(religious) slavery? "Just sign this Everlasting Life insurance policy and you will have a better life in our air-conditioned and plush Afterlife." Exactly what did "your" Jesus do that hadn't been done many times before, in many other early supernatural religious faith beliefs, in many other parts of the ancient world...or don't they count for some rationalized reason?

Why don't you take a little time and try reading all the books of the Pseudepigrapha.

<a href="http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm</a>

(Preamble extract)
There are different attitudes in regard to these writings. At one end of the scale are those Christians who believe in the inerrant, complete, God-inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Everything else is considered to be spurious. Then come those who accept the two Testaments as authoritative and complete, but who see many of these writings as useful in studying the religious beliefs of past ages, especially at the time of the early Christian Church. At the other extreme are those who question the authenticity of the canonized Scriptures, noting various inconsistencies and errors, but not necessarily accepting these other writings as being authentical Scripture.
(End extract)

<a href="http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon.stm" target="_blank">http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon.stm</a>

(Extract)
The word "canon" comes from the Greek word kanon--(a rod used to measure). A biblical canon is a list of books considered authoritative as Scripture by a particular religious community.

Inside and Outside Books
"Inside books" are those included in a biblical canon. Sometimes which book is inside or outside depends upon whom you are talking with. For example the Roman Catholic Old Testament has more books than the Protestant one.

· Roman Catholics call these extra books Deuterocanonical (Second Canon) and consider them "inside books."
· Protestants call these books the Old Testament Apocrypha and consider them "outside books."
(End extract)

Which is the correct/right interpretation? Inquiring minds want to know. They also want to know which of the other approximately 4,200 faith beliefs/interpretations are correct/right. (When the American government forces its God down my throat, I want to know, exactly, which one I am "under" and "trust" in.)

Please examine this chronology closely and point to where your God or Jesus designated which books were divinely inspired and which were not. Looks like perfectly human handiwork to me.

<a href="http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/timece.stm" target="_blank">http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/timece.stm</a>

Now put some real time context around the development of Christianity and the Bible. (Would you defy your Emperor? Given his record, I doubt that you would do so more than once.)

<a href="http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/ConstantineConverts.html" target="_blank">http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/ConstantineConverts.html</a>

(VERY IMPORTANT EXTRACT FOR MOST FOLKS IN THIS FORUM)
Constantine believed that the Church and the State should be as close as possible. From 312-320 Constantine was tolerant of paganism, keeping pagan gods on coins and retaining his pagan high priest title "Pontifex Maximus" in order to maintain popularity with his subjects, possibly indicating that he never understood the theology of Christianity. From 320-330 he began to attack paganism through the government but in many cases persuaded people to follow the laws by combining pagan worship with Christianity. He made December 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the official holiday it is now--the birthday of Jesus. It is likely that he also instituted celebrating Easter and Lent based on pagan holidays. From 330-337 Constantine stepped up his destruction of paganism, and during this time his mother, Helen, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and began excavations to recover artifacts in the city. This popularized the tradition of pilgrimages in Christianity.
(END IMPORTANT EXTRACT)

(Sound like any of the people we hear on TV today?)

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

tragic_pizza

Not ignoring this... waiting for time to read the references.

There are, by the way, many parts of the OT that in no way need "toning down." I need to do a bit of research on the facts surrounding the development of NT canon, but if memory serves, the bulk of NT canon was generally accepted as Scripture by the time it was compiled. I may, however, be speaking from my anus on this.

Toto

This is veering away from church state separation. Constantine's use of Christianity is a good negative example showing why government-sponsored religion is not a good thing. But the motives for constructing the canon would do better in Biblical Criticism and Archeology.

For the latter issue, you could start with <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html" target="_blank">The Formation of the New Testament Canon</a> by Richard Carrier in the SecWeb Library.

I'll wait to see which way this discussion develops before deciding to move it, or you could let me know how you wish to proceed.

tragic_pizza

Well, I have no argument with state-sponsored religion being a patently bad idea.

It is interesting that, while "legalizing" Christianity and helping the Church to resolve one of its most pressing disagreements at the time, Constantine remined unbaptized (and thus unable to participate in Church sacraments like communion) until upon his deathbed.

One may conclude that he (a)believed, with reservations, (b)beleived unreservedly, but remained unbaptized in order to continue the usual Roman treacheries, or (c)did not believe, and say Christianity as merely a means to an end.

Buffman

Toto

I have no pressing desire to take this further.

tragic_pizza

I just thought that you, and others, might enjoy looking over the URLs I provided and drawing whatever conclusions you wish about the information contained at those sites. I feel that the more we can place Church-State, Religion-Governemt, God-Caesar in the context of accurate history, the better able we will be to discuss the issues involved.

I hope that you don't feel that that makes it an unfair "hit-and-run" post. If you should, then by all means request Toto to move it to the appropriate forum. I have already placed those URLs in my Favorites folder....if I can ever find them again among the over 1,000 already there. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

ohwilleke

This document from the II library sums of the formation of the NT canon quite nicely.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html</a>

Encyclopedia Britannica has a similar account, but this is no longer a free access site.

This is another library entry:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html</a>

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Buffman

ohwilleke

Thank you. Two more for my reference list.

Those two URLs only confirm how powerful, and insidious, current religious faith beliefs really are when presented to an ill-informed public by Master Manipulators of the facts...or lack thereof.

Here is the URL of the group that I found to be the most rational concerning NT faith beliefs:

<a href="http://westarinstitute.org/JS/js.html" target="_blank">http://westarinstitute.org/JS/js.html</a>

What these religious faith believers have to say about fundamentalist Christians is worth a read...especially by all Christians of common sense.