Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
History of the Bible
Can any share some info about the following?
-When and How the Holy Bible was put together?
-Who compiled the books into the Bible?
-Why some Books were chosen and others rejected?
-Why we only accept hte four Gospels? Were'nt there more books written?
-Where tehre any passages deleted it from the current books in the Bible?
-Was the Bible at all edited?
Sorry seems a bit much, but unfortuanetly i didnt fully trust what i found online, it seems all people wanna do nowadays is refute the Holy Book based on their misunderstandings. Many chose to take as a truth the "fictious" tale of hte DaVinci code and all it says about the Holy Bible, completely forgetting that the author wrote the book under the genre of Fiction! He himself is a Christian.
Thanks
-When and How the Holy Bible was put together?
-Who compiled the books into the Bible?
-Why some Books were chosen and others rejected?
-Why we only accept hte four Gospels? Were'nt there more books written?
-Where tehre any passages deleted it from the current books in the Bible?
-Was the Bible at all edited?
Sorry seems a bit much, but unfortuanetly i didnt fully trust what i found online, it seems all people wanna do nowadays is refute the Holy Book based on their misunderstandings. Many chose to take as a truth the "fictious" tale of hte DaVinci code and all it says about the Holy Bible, completely forgetting that the author wrote the book under the genre of Fiction! He himself is a Christian.
Thanks
Comments
like for example, a research was done searching all the church fathers writings, and from all those writings, they found that you can compile the whole Bible except for 37 verses. that to me was amazing.
This is a topic on which books have been written - the best one I know is by an Anglican clergyman called Michael Green (whose views are very orthodox) and it is called The Books the Church Suppressed and is at amazon here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Church-Suppressed-Fiction-Truth/dp/0825460964/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197637024&sr=1-14
He describes brilliantly how the Bible came out of the early Church and its need to pronounce on orthodoxy because of the various heresies that began to be preached. He shows that the books we have in the New Testament are those the Church has always held to be the inspired Word of God. He also demonstrates where Brown and others are plain wrong. The 'other' books were all heretic teachings which were never accepted by the Church. The fact that some of them are very old books simply means they contain very old heresies.
Green's view is that what the Church has always taught is, itself, powerful evidence. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the various epistles were written by those whose names they bear.
I don't often recommend books by non-Orthodox authors, but there is nothing but Orthodox teaching in this book, and it is the most powerful refutation of many of the modern myths about the Scriptures. Of course, 'scholars discover Church teaches orthodoxy about the Bible' makes few headlines - but it is a good read, and if you can get hold of it, you'll enjoy and profit from it.
In Christ,
Anglian
Here is a very brief response to Brown's answer to the questions you pose:
[quote author=gregorytheSinner link=topic=6020.msg80332#msg80332 date=1197590229]
-When and How the Holy Bible was put together?
Brown's answer: The Canon of Scripture was formed at the Council of Nicaea by suppressing all the books that challenged the Council's agenda to make Jesus into a God, and by accepting all the books that supported that agenda.
The truth: The formation of the Canon of Scripture cannot be pin-pointed to any single moment in the history of the Church, it was a centuries long process that began centuries before the Council of Nicaea and one which the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with in any event. The "how" of the process is rather complex, but in a nutshell: the Holy Spirit worked through the Fathers of the Church who were inspired to rigourously apply a foolproof criteria to determine the veracity of any given book's claim to authority. There were many books that were rejected even though they attest to the divinity of Jesus in some peculiar way, and the books that were ultimately accepted quite explicitly confirmed the humanity of Christ as much as His divinity, and in some cases (e.g. the Gospel of St Mark) even moreso (though this simply relates to the author's primary concern for writing his Gospel and in no way underestimates the divinity of Christ which is quite explicitly accounted for). In light of this, the process that Brown claims not only lakcs historical evidence, but in fact makes very little sense. Brown's claim: Emperor St Constantine.
The truth: The Righteous Constantine had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture whatsoever. There is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest that he did. In light of what I said above, it should be clear that no single person can be referred to as being responsible for the canon. St Athanasius the Apostolic is, however, the first to be credited with formally outlining a list of the 27 books of the NT, but the authority acquired by these books was well-attested to long before St Athanasius was even born. Like I mentioned above, a strict criteria was applied by the Fathers--one which considered things like Apostolicity (does it bear an Apostolic character or not?), authorship (was it authored by a genuine Apostle or not?), date (is it ancient or not?), degree of attestation (universal or local?), orthodoxy (does it present doctrine which is in line with the faith of the Church as it has been received and preserved from the beginning by the Holy Spirit, or not?). Because ultimately only the four Gospels passed the test referred to above. No. Dan Brown claims to be a Christian and heralds his work as a fiction, only so that he can deceptively portray his work as innocuous in the hope of fooling naive Christians who are vulnerable of being influenced.
It is clear that Brown is not a Christian, no matter what he says--he denies that Jesus is God, he denies the very existence of God--he believes God is just a heap of energy, and that you can even call him Buddha if you want; he supports a number of ridiculous pagan notions, such as the worship of a female deity. I cannot find anything in his system of belief that even loosely resembles anything Christian.
It is also clear that fiction is simply Brown's medium for conveying historical and theological claims which he believes to be fact. In the very preface of his book he claims that his historical claims are factually accurate.
That was the best brief summary of this debate I have ever seen.
In Christ,
Anglian
It is clear that Brown is not a Christian, no matter what he says--he denies that Jesus is God, he denies the very existence of God--he believes God is just a heap of energy, and that you can even call him Buddha if you want; he supports a number of ridiculous pagan notions, such as the worship of a female deity. I cannot find anything in his system of belief that even loosely resembles anything Christian.
As i read through H.E.M. Bishoy's book about this, he says it's weird that Brown still use the "He" form of subject when refering to Jesus or God, even though he denies His divinity.
Coptic priests serve God and witness to His message - not even newsworthy. In a fallen world we can see what standards apply.
In peace,
Anglian