What is the origin of the Bible's content?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ILoveTheLordGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ILoveTheLordGod

Guest
One thing that’s giving me an extremely tight feeling is the Emperor Constantine issue.
Did he actually shape up the Bible to his own likings?

What is being taught to me in school is that it all started with those who witnessed God and Christ, then passed on by word then finally written after centuries - and it was written during the time when Christians were being persecuted.

I’d understand if the Bible isn’t 100% accurate, but if its content was voted upon or based on the bias of Constantine, I’d be scared.

Can someone please give me an explanation?
:crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:
 
Hi I Iove the Lord God,

The P25 fragment, which is an Egyptian copy of Saint John’s gospel dates to about 125 A.D. and most people consider John’s gospel the last written.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

There are also fragments of the Gospels from outside the Roman Empire from places like Armenia. Constantine was in the 4th century and there are many copies of the New Testament writings from well before that and there is no evidence of political rewriting of the NT.

There is no evidence that Constantine changed anything to do with the New Testament. We should also remember that Constantine changed the Roman capital from Rome to New Rome (Constantinople) in Asia and the Catholic Church stayed in Rome and Constantine’s son went back to persecuting the Church when he took over. Constantine not only did not change the NT but he was never in a position to do so.

If someone wants to claim that Constantine or Micky Mouse changed the NT then they have to provide some evidence and then we can discuss the merits, or non merits of that.

Regards.
 
Almost, ILove. Archaeological evidence, not to mention pretty much everything we know about history, contradicts the theory that Constantine had anything to do with shaping the Bible to his own likings. The only aspect of this theory that has any credibility is that Constantine commissioned a set of Bibles to be made, but there is no evidence he directed the preparers to include or exclude whatever books, individual verses, or textual variations Constantine may have wanted. And Constantine’s role in the Nicene Council was not much more than to request that it take place and to prod the bishops into doing their job.

As for the role of oral transmission in the development of the Biblical text, you no doubt understand that this depends on the book in question. The Third Epistle of John obviously was written directly with no period of oral transmission; Psalms is another matter; but the Gospels were written by, or on behalf of, the four men named in their titles and can fairly be considered their own work.

Keep in mind that the stories contained in the Gospels are based on the recollections of eyewitnesses, but not just any eyewitnesses: eyewitnesses who knew they were being expected to remember what they were experiencing, who were in each other’s company before and after, and who kept in touch. So right away the aggregate recollections of the first generation became the official story and was reduced to written form before they all died. And all this happened within 60 years of Jesus’ death, not “centuries”.

Be advised, ILove, that the “centuries” theory comes from 19th century biblical scholarship that has long been discredited. The best representative of this school of thought is Rudolph Bultmann, should you wish to look him up.
 
So does that mean that the Emperor Constantine thing is a hoax? Who was the very first person to mention that Emperor Constantine altered the original scriptures?
And why is it called “ROMAN Catholicism”, wherein its leader, the Pope, is in Rome?

It’s not that I believe in the NT. I’m just asking to get this thing off my chest.
And what is the REAL story of the Bible’s origin?
 
ILoveTheLordGod said:
So does that mean that the Emperor Constantine thing is a hoax? Who was the very first person to mention that Emperor Constantine altered the original scriptures?
And why is it called “ROMAN Catholicism”, wherein its leader, the Pope, is in Rome?

It’s not that I believe in the NT. I’m just asking to get this thing off my chest.
And what is the REAL story of the Bible’s origin?
Click to expand...
I don’t know where the “Constantine” thing got started. These kinds of things can be hard to pin down.

As far as other things you mention.
The Church has never called herself “Roman Catholic” - it is the "Catholic Church.
The term, “Roman Catholic”, as I understand it, came about at the time of King Henry the VIII of England. When he split with Rome, the Church in England asserted that they too were “Catholic” and began calling those who remained loyal to the Holy See, “Roman Catholics”. Originally it was seen as a derogatory term. Today - not so. In fact, it seems to have been adopted “unofficially” by many/most Catholics.
The reason the Pope has traditionally resided in Rome is because at the time of His death, the first Pope (Peter) was bishop of Rome. Since Peter was the leader of the Apostles, The man who succeeded Peter to the bishopric of Rome is accorded to be the leader of the Church.
Of course today, technically, the Pope does not reside “in Rome” but in the city State of the Vatican.

Peace
James
 
Yes, the Constantine conspiracy is a hoax. Although I don’t know who started the hoax, I’m willing to bet it was one of the usual suspects (an 18th century French rationalist, a 19th century Protestant, or a 20th century professor at a Catholic university somewhere LOL). It’s hard, in general, to track down anti-Catholic apologetics to their roots because so often sources are not referenced.

The Catholic Church has no official denominational name because it is the original denomination, and even the term “Catholic” was coined by Catholics in order to make it easier to talk about the authentic Church as opposed to the heretical splinter groups in the early centuries. But the designation “Roman” arose, among Protestants as they were getting organized, to distinguish between the Church they were rejecting and the churches they were creating.

It is true that our administrative headquarters are in Rome (well actually in the Vatican City State) but the Church as a whole is really governed by the diocesan bishops. It’s just easier for a westerner, who is familiar with the monarchical model of government or the corporate business organizational model, to see the pope as a sort of king over the whole Church, or a sort of CEO, but the existing governmental structure of the Church is difficult to explain since it is the only example of its kind.

The real story of the Bible’s origin is not short, but here it is in a nutshell:
  • Genesis through Deuteronomy were written and edited first by Moses based on common knowledge and direct dictation by God, and touched up by anonymous scholars after him.
  • Joshua through Sirach were prepared by different groups of scholars at different times working with ancient records dating back to the time of Joshua, except for a few that were written directly by specific individuals (e.g. Nehemiah, Sirach, 1 Maccabees).
  • Isaiah through Malachi were similarly prepared from the written records of the people who made the prophecies.
  • Matthew through Acts were written by or at the direction of Jesus’ immediate followers and their associates.
  • Romans through Revelation were written directly by Paul and other apostles or their associates.
 
DianaCC said:
Wait … you mean you *don’t *believe in the NT? Why not?
Click to expand...
I am thinking that, from the context of the questions, the poster meant to say the opposite of what they wrote.

It is impossible to do justice to the origins of the Bible in a forum. My suggestion would be to find a good book about the history of the Bible and read about how it developed.

From what I have read about Constantine, he was not “into scripture” to any great extent. His main concern was maintaining stability within his kingdom. I know of no credible evidence that he edited any books of scripture. Plus, there are various manuscripts of most New Testament Bible texts that pre-date Constantine, so it would be possible to see what changes he could have made. Also, more than half of our Bible, what we call the Old Testament, was Jewish scriptures that existed for many centuries already and were continuously used all over. Constantine could not have “changed” those.

If Constantine was involved in anything with scripture, it would have been in steering the interpretation of it and establishing certain doctrines based on it.
 
ILoveTheLordGod said:
One thing that’s giving me an extremely tight feeling is the Emperor Constantine issue.
Did he actually shape up the Bible to his own likings?

What is being taught to me in school is that it all started with those who witnessed God and Christ, then passed on by word then finally written after centuries - and it was written during the time when Christians were being persecuted.

I’d understand if the Bible isn’t 100% accurate, but if its content was voted upon or based on the bias of Constantine, I’d be scared.

Can someone please give me an explanation?
:crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:
Click to expand...
Here is a video on the Bible’s origin:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

Have peace of mind, what you have been fed is a hoax, intended to sow doubt in your faith and turn away from it.
 
Thank you all of you.

I was traumatized by this thing for a while that I couldn’t concentrate on my school work as much.

God bless all of you! 👍

BTW, was Paul really an apostle?

Because I thought the list was
  1. Simon Peter
  2. Andrew
  3. Philip
  4. Bartholomew
  5. James the Great
  6. John
  7. Matthew
  8. Thomas
  9. James the Less
  10. Jude Thaddeus
  11. Simon the Patriot
  12. Judas
 
DianaCC said:
Wait … you mean you *don’t *believe in the NT? Why not?
Click to expand...
Yikes! I meant
“It’s not that I don’t believe in the NT”.

I do believe in the NT. I believe that Christ died for all.
As for Revelation, I’m not sure if it should be taken literally or figuratively. I’m still trying to get more information because to some, the writer of Revelation was referring to Emperor Nero when he talked about the beast.
 
ILoveTheLordGod said:
BTW, was Paul really an apostle?
Click to expand...
Of course, but not in the same way as the other 12 (well, the other 11). Judas was sort of disqualified; the remaining 11 elected Matthias and later on Paul received his mission, so in all there were 13 technically.
 
And what about Abraham? his father was a pagan.

I mean, why were there pagans?

Was he the first one to believe that there’s only one God?
 
ILoveTheLordGod said:
And what about Abraham? his father was a pagan. I mean, why were there pagans? Was he the first one to believe that there’s only one God?
Click to expand...
There were pagans partly because the devil deceived people along the way, and partly because people’s minds were clouded by habitual sin; these pagan gods were either God himself, angels, demons, famous people (the Roman god Jupiter, for example, is Japheth one of Noah’s three sons), or made up altogether. But Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Melchizedek definitely knew there was only one God, so Abraham wasn’t the first.

Legend has it that Terah, Abraham’s father, was an idol-sculptor by trade, and one day Abraham went into his father’s shop and smashed all the idols except one with an axe, and laid the axe in the arms of the last one. When Terah asked Abraham what happened, Abraham said the one idol smashed all the others.
 
ILoveTheLordGod said:
Thank you all of you.

I was traumatized by this thing for a while that I couldn’t concentrate on my school work as much.

God bless all of you! 👍

BTW, was Paul really an apostle?

Because I thought the list was
  1. Simon Peter
  2. Andrew
  3. Philip
  4. Bartholomew
  5. James the Great
  6. John
  7. Matthew
  8. Thomas
  9. James the Less
  10. Jude Thaddeus
  11. Simon the Patriot
  12. Judas
Click to expand...
The term “Apostle” is from the Greek, “apostolos”, meaning one who is sent forth as a messenger, or an ambassador…

We use the term in regards to the 12 (11 minus Judas) because Jesus commissioned them and sent them forth (As the Father has sent me so do I send you…). Likewise Paul received his commission as messenger from Jesus. But there were many others who traveled with the 12, or were commissioned by the Church to go forth on Apostolic journeys.

Later as language changed and Latin and/or the non-Greek vernaculars became the norms for teaching that “Apostle” became a synonym for the group of 12.

Peace
James
 
Interesting, but how did Abraham know that there’s only one God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top