Ever notice how the Bible is a lot like early versions of Wikipedia? It was cobbled together from various sources, most of whom were anonymous and had questionable motives and education.

Much of the information on the site was contradicted by other sources on the same site, just as in the Bible.

Good and valid information could be voted away for the sake of preference and personal opinion.

Scores of people believed whatever information was found there simply because... hey, if it's written down, it's gotta be true.

Strange how easily that happens. Of course, the people in control of Wikipedia eventually intervened and tried to straighten things out. God on the other hand... well, any day now.

...and, no, I don't regard Nicea as a fact-check conference. That was politics and power interests, plain and simple.

A source is another word for speculation and rumors all you have to do is attach it to a well known entity and its believable.

Wikipedia = "Well known so it must be believable"
Bible = "Well known so it must be believable"
News Media = "Well known so it must be believable"
Corporations = "Well known so it must be believable"

When you "believe" something with great followings you are easily brainwashed or deceived through hidden agendas. Think of it as Facebook or any major search engine, people worship them as gods but if you look at the bigger picture both are riddled with deception. Facebook helps you connect (not with friends but with enemies) and search engines are discrimination engines based on ranking "sources" by whoever is more popular and more believable.

If you are going to believe in God I would recommend believing in him directly, not with the use of "sources". Get answers directly from HIM, not the bible You don't have to but you would be safer that way. The easy thing to do though is go to wikipedia or open a bible cause the answers you want are mostly there. Sure there could be facts in both but there is also agendas involved that you may or may not know about that is the scary thing.

The bible is known for discriminating certain groups of people like the gays, I think whoever put that in the bible was inserting their own agenda. Its ultimately why the bible is questionable, the quotes within them there is no way for anyone to validate them. If god exist why not ask him yourself instead instead of using bible quotes to determine truth? I'm not really bashing the bible, just making a point that I think people misuse the bible and believe it more then their own god and that is where it gets dangerous.

I LOL'd at "getting answers from HIM"

I think it's funny that believers have no problem with people who TALK to God... but if you say HE/SHE talks to you, they think you're crazy.

I don't listen to very much of anything from wikipedia because the information isnt always accurate. 

well, some people thing size and age guarantee accuracy.
In like, 1300 there was a nifty misprint that said you shalt commit adultery, they had to do a reprint, haha.

I use .... . Wikia (which is probably a different form of wikipedia). Basically, I only use it for unnecessary information, usually pertaining to an anime show or something- Never anything school related. If I use wiki for school, I often check my information from other resources to make sure that it is accurate.

@The#1 That's funny

@ Cat: I think you may be missing the point of me comparing the two.

Astynax27 : Whoa whoa whoa...first of, your statement about the Council of Nicea is about politics and power interest is one of the biggest misconceptions about the council. You need to study up your church history on that. The main concern was the Arian controversy and clearing up the issue of the Trinity. (which continues on to be a huge topic for future councils)

Second of all, going back to the topic at hand. The reason that wikipedia is different to the Bible is relating to one of the assumptions that you made in your first statement.

"It was cobbled together from various sources, most of whom were anonymous and had questionable motives and education."

This is a false assumption. Looking at the New Testament alone, check the authorship of all the books in the NT. They are all either apostles or close disciples of the apostles (Luke and possibly Athanasius [sp?]). The apostles are all the remaining disciples of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. So these are not some anonymous authorship. These are the closest followers of Jesus Christ and leaders of the first church. The people who were chosen and filled with the Holy Spirit to continue to spread God's Word across the world. And that is the big thing about the church and their beliefs. They check their beliefs back to what the was taught by the Apostles, and that became an indirect standard to what was considered canon for the Bible in future councils (which, if I remember carefully, is many years after Nicea)

The early church and what they understand about Christianity was also like that, that is why it is also the standard of what was considered heresy. As it is written in the Book of Acts, "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42)

Third and final point, it is understandable that there are some people who would believe anything that is written. People in that time were really aware of the issue of authorship and false authorship. However, you also need to understand that the culture during that time is also very serious about pseudo-authorship and false authorship and it is looked down upon. Paul even mentioned about it in one of the letters and warned about it. So it was really checked upon and there are very revealing characteristics that would show authorship of them or their personal scribes.

I'm sorry, but you can't just focus on the New Testament. That's avoidance at best. As long as Christians still cite the OT -- as many do now, regarding Gay Marriage rights and Leviticus, you must answer for the OT as well as the new, or get rid of it. EVERYTHING I said about the creation of the OT is true.

Church History is written by the Church, just as war history is written by the winners. How can you be sure that they didn't simply write in their favor so as not to portray it as a matter of politics and control?

This is where I may be wrong, but was Nicea where they voted to determine if Jesus was just a teacher or, in fact, the Son of God? IF not Nicea, then at another council. The fact that this was a matter of vote, should reveal something about the nature of faith and understanding.

No doubt that the NT was better cataloged. Though I would point out that spiritual teachers show up all the time and have followers -- that doesn't qualify the followers as experts or, for that matter, simply accurate note-takers. Furthermore, the bible was altered and re-written in areas since the Apostles, even Church History admits this; so how can current believers claim that anything is true, and not simply a matter of chosen belief that is, in fact, no more provable than any other perspective?

If Christians cut out the OT, stick to the NT, and stop using old myths to deny current rights, then I have no problem with their BELIEFS.

Astynax27 : Let me back up a bit, I talked about only the NT because it would seem to be easier to defend the OT rather than the NT, especially when that position speaks against both the Jewish position and Christian position and the fact that the OT has more copies of the original manuscripts than the NT. But I was by no means neglecting the OT. They are in no way anonymous nor written by questionable background either.

Second, to clarify my original post, when I said Trinity issues, I was technically incorrect, since it was only about the position of God the Father and God the Son, and not the Holy Spirit. It's related, but the trinity issue as a whole isn't until later councils.

Third, the only thing that is political in that council is that Constantine called the gathering so that there can be a more unified church. He was not crucial in the debates themselves (he's not even qualified to take part in debating). The council itself was purely about getting the doctrine correct and not to get the things that they believe to be incorrect. There were a couple of other issues discussed in the council, but the Arianism debate was the big one. How in the world would you think it is a power struggle when (if I remember correctly) only 22 of about 300 bishops there were in support of Arius. They were not a threat in numbers at all, but a threat in having the correct understanding of Father and Son. In fact, after more of the exposition of what Arius believed to support his position, the clearer it became to the council that what he spoke was blasphemous. Even a few of his supporters changed their position after hearing the argumentation.

Fourth, this statement is invalid:

"Church History is written by the Church, just as war history is written by the winners."

The result is not disputed by either the church or the rest of the world. They are not parallels to each other. Also you are basically saying that we shouldn't trust any history that is written by those who were victors.

Fifth, your description of Nicea was kinda right, kinda not. It is already agreed that Jesus was not just a teacher. The question is whether Jesus was co-eternal with God the Father or whether Jesus was the first creation of God, which is what Arianism believed in.

Sixth, I would have thought that the fact that they had councils to discuss about what Christians believe would be taken a little more seriously. Before that council, there was no official specific doctrinal statements about what Christianity believes. So, when you see groups within teaching something that is considered contradictory to what Christianity believes, wouldn't you take the belief more seriously for the fact that they are trying to make clear what they belief, rather than just letting people just believe whatever they see fit? If they were to do that, the outside world would see Christianity as a belief system that people can just believe whatever they want. They would most definitely not be taken seriously. Furthermore, if this was not cleared up, then those who are either new to the faith or have little understanding of Christianity would be confused or led astray as well. That is why this council is sooooooooo important.

Seventh, citation needed on the Bible being altered and re-written. If you mean by how they were translated from manuscripts, then yes, of course they changed. Language changes and so they would have to be alterations in order to fit what the manuscripts are trying to say in our correct language while still remain true to the original, but alterations of the original manuscripts themselves? Textual criticism and about 20,000 (OT and NT combined) manuscripts would say differently.

Eighth, you do understand this was not simply a "vote and done" issue, right? The council lasted 2 months of heated debate, having both sides hearing about how they are supporting their position by, guess what, looking back to Apostolic teachings and consistency of scripture. They want to make sure that it is correct as a doctrine. Also understand that this council itself didn't end the controversy. It took a long while before the issue, for the most part, ended.

Final point, to go back to your original point from your first post, Nicea didn't even have anything to with establishment of the canon anyways.

Astynax27 : For you to say that the bible contradicts itself is a totally false acquisition.  The Bible is the perfect living word of God and therefore cannot contradict itself.  Man contradicts the Bible and as such believes the Bible the be unethical in factors of education and other medial things.  You cannot compare the word of God to wikipedia because that's calling God a liar and that is blasphemy, and you don't want to blaspheme against God because there is no remission of sin for that sin and you will be bound to the lake of fire.  God's word is perfect, but perceived differently by different people.

And I'm done. Per my rule, the moment the idiocy of fundamentalism enters the conversation, I leave it. Hellfire, really?

As per your comment on history, Play, I'll just say this: NO, it shouldn't just be trusted. If the Nazis had won WWII, do you honestly think the history books of today would say the same thing? What cannot be tested and proven, should not be believed.

Astynax27 : "As per your comment on history, Play, I'll just say this: NO, it shouldn't just be trusted. If the Nazis had won WWII, do you honestly think the history books of today would say the same thing? What cannot be tested and proven, should not be believed."

No, they wouldn't have said the same thing because...they would have won WWII...and it would have been written that way. Why would they say it otherwise? In the same scenario, do you honestly think that the Allied forces would have said that the Nazis lost even if the Allies were the losing group? Especially in such a large scale event? Not a chance.

Of course, we are not to just plainly trust anything that is written as history, but at the same time, we are to have faith in the evidence that places out and see the truth from what has been studied and discovered in history, while trumping misconceptions in the process. That is why I was correcting you on the understanding of this moment in history in both a secular and a Christian perspective.

I would argue that the very 1st statement about the Bible being written by different people is accurate, but that is about all that I would agree with. I don't agree that there are contradictions. Every example of a contradiction I've seen has been a mere contextual error on the part of the accuser. Also, the council that decided structure of the Bible went by a very specific criteria in determining the documents that went into the Bible. It wasn't merely out of opinion or special interest. The Bible, particularly the New Testament was written by witnesses of Jesus or at least people within a generation of his existence. I don't believe the Bible was written by a bunch of hoodlums. These weren't just people trying to change history based on self motivation. These who believed exactly what they saw and experienced.

The fundemental problem with society is that we are biased in how our opinions are formed. This is evident from the fact people are saying its not the bible that contradicts, its just every single person that disagrees has made a mistake.
Who cares tbh, people can believe the moon is a light, bats are birds and one man built a boat the size of a large island out of wood that would take a sizeable forest, so long as its kept out of the classroom im really not any more concerned than i am toward people that gather there 'knowledge' from wikipedia.

mr.pace : You're very well aware that the Bible was written and translated by human beings right?
I suppose the Bible may be similar to Wikipedia, but the same could be said of all encyclopedias, which is essentially what Wikipedia is. The Bible on the other hand, was never meant as an encyclopedia.

Sephitard9001 : Yes I'm aware the Bible was written by man, but God was the one who told them what to write.  And in an essence of it's perfection it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the God was the Word.  And since God is perfect and the Word is God that makes the Word perfect.

mr.pace : Why do you so easily believe what is written there if it's written by other humans? You say God made them write it, but you only think that because it says so in the Bible. That's circular logic; "I know the the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so, and I know the Bible is perfect because God wrote it." You have to assume one is correct without proof before believing the other.

play4fun : I am not an expert but I have read and listened to lectures from people I would consider experts. One of the main people I enjoy on this subject is Bart Ehrman who studied at the same college you go to and possibly took some of the same theology courses.

Anyways I understand that the only absolutely known author out of Jesus' contemporaries  is Paul. According the Ehrman, the earliest manuscripts were anonymous and they weren't given titles like "Luke" until much later. Within some of the gospels there is evidence of multiple authors. For instance, Matthew originally ends with Jesus being crucified and every thing passed that point only starts to show up centuries after the earliest known manuscripts.

That is just the NT too, when looking at the OT there are many authors or claimed authors that don't appear to be correct. Moses didn't write the first 5 books and we don't know who did, although like in Matthew there is evidence of multiple authors all of which are anonymous. Another example would be the book of Joshua who writes about places that didn't exist during his supposed life time, but he talks about them like they all ready do exist. This means that it wasn't Joshua who was the author but some anonymous author writing after these places have all ready been built.

Now you obviously believe that the disciples were the authors, so I am just wondering if you could point me in the right direction to finding information about this.

This is a short video of Ehrman during a debate discussing this very topic. It is only 5 minutes long please watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk

smotpoker86 : I just looked up Ehrman and I wouldn't quite say that we took the same theology courses considering the fact that he graduated in the 1970s and that he majored in Biblical Studies while I only took 5 courses in Bible and Theology. LOL. Personally I wonder if his turn to agnosticism was influenced by his time in Princeton, because from what I heard, Princeton was teaching some really contradictory stuff back then.

You are right that Luke (and if I remember correctly, so is the rest of the gospels) did not stamp a name associated to the literature itself. We obviously also know that the chapters and the verses were added later for easier reference, but the way the authorship was obtained is through the dating of source, the style and themes from the source, and other specific clues in the passage and associated passages to figure out the author.

I can use the Gospel of Luke as an example. From the text itself, we can figure out some things.

1) The intention of the Gospel: If you look at chapter one, you would see that this gospel was written for someone, specifically a guy named Theophilus. The intention of this author is also written on the intro of the Book:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

2) Language: The manuscripts were written in Koine Greek, which tells us a couple of things: It tells us that the author is educated that he is able to write in Greek; it tells us the gospel is intended for people that are fluent in Greek, which include those that are outside of Palestine who didn't learn their mother language; it tells us that Christianity has already spread throughout other parts of the Roman Empire, so it had to be after Paul's first missionary trip.

3) Another book by the same author to reference: The author of the Gospel of Luke has to be the same author for the Book of Acts because of the intro again.

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen." (Acts 1:1-2)

Again Theophilus, and also mentions about a former book written to him. It has to be the Gospel of Luke, because of the description of the book as well. So Acts and Luke are written by the same author, now we can use these two books to figure out the author.

4) The detail of the Gospel: The Gospel of Luke is known to be the most detailed Gospel out of all the Gospels. It has more descriptions of miracles, more details of events and happenings. The intro even talks about him to do careful investigation to write this account, so it is not a surprise on how detailed this book can be. The Book of Acts is also a very descriptive history book. This shows that the author is a very detailed person as well as educated.

5) The themes in the Gospel: No history was written without a purpose or a goal of writing them. This gospel is no different. There are some key elements and themes in this book that other Gospels do not have. Some of the main themes are of Jesus as perfect and compassionate to any one with illness and shortcomings and from any background. Leading to the ultimate healing of the cross. These are the certain things that the author focuses on.

6) Has to be a disciple of Jesus or an Apostle: The topic of the life of Jesus has to written by someone who is trustworthy of writing such things. If it is some random person who said that he will write about Jesus' life, then no one would bother reading it or take it as authoritative.

7) The style of how this gospel was written: We can cross-reference to the styles of how other authors would write, and from it, we can deduct who didn't write this gospel. Paul, Peter, James, and John are all out because of how different they were written in the Letters compared to how this Gospel was written.

I'm sure there are probably other things that would provide more evidence, but with what I have already mentioned just based on the work itself, we can come to the conclusion that it is Luke who would most likely have written this gospel. Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), and has been mentioned a couple of times in Paul's letters. We know (and others who know him) that he is a doctor of some sorts (Colossians 4:14) and also a fellow worker of Paul (Philemon 1:24). All of this fits that he knows what he is talking about, he is educated and detailed, he knows Greek, and the fact that he was there during the events of the book of Acts means that he had to have lived around that time period. We also know that the earliest manuscript of Luke was dated to be around early third century, which means that the original is earlier than that, which fits the description of either the disciples of the Apostles or Jesus would have written it. And from comparing to the other books in the Bible, we can tell that it was definitely not Paul, Peter, John, James, etc that would have written these two books that way. That is why the conclusion is Luke to be the author of this gospel, and no one else would come close to fit these descriptions.

"Matthew originally ends with Jesus being crucified and every thing passed that point only starts to show up centuries after the earliest known manuscripts. "

I feel that you are referring to the Gospel of Mark rather than Matthew. I mean, the dispute of whether the last few verses of that Gospel is obviously characterized that way. If you were to get any version of the Bible, the last few verse of Mark would either have a footnote, or it would be omitted altogether with a long footnote in the end. Some suggests that Mark did this on purpose.

As for Joshua, I agree that Joshua didn't write the Book of Joshua. I don't think people would disagree about that. I think the only reason that the book was named Joshua is because it is about Joshua, the same with the book of Ruth, or the book of Esther, or 1st and 2nd Samuel. I don't think anyone would claim that.