Hey

[coheir]

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine  offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins.

 

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

 

here is an article that has info of Constantine

http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss129.html

[Pink Dove]

Am I missing an article link in the OP? I've read members responding to, 'the article', but I do not see a link.

 

I copied the sentence from that OP as pertains to Constantine ("Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." ) and found this site: Bible Origins

 

I think if Constanting did want to coalesce the Roman empire into one faith, he'd be a wise dictator to create a heavenly authority in the image and likeness of the earthly one that those he sought to conquer could relate to. A monotheistic celestial leader.
Therefore, adding the scripture that proclaims all scripture is God breathed would cement that unquestionable vehicle for proof and conversion.

 

I've always been fascinated by the origins of today's Bible. What I think stumps many seekers in that pursuit is that scholars always say there are no autographs to be found so as to know the first writings that predated the first Bible. While scrolls, and epistles, which are letters, remain either in whole or in fragments. And yet some find it odd that while the apostle Paul was executed somehow all his letters would not only be preserved, but deemed worthy of occupying most of the new testament.

 

That which is suppose to be Jesus' message to the world. And his words delivered by Christ himself occupy only a small portion of the new testament. That primacy, Paul's letters outnumbering Christ's own words, is very confusing as to what Christians, Christ followers, are to believe when a Pharisee who never knew Christ in the flesh wrote most of the new testament, more than what is attributed to Jesus himself, far more in fact, that is to lead people to Christ.

 

This is a great thread. I hope to learn those things that will help clear the confusion I have in seeking the honest truth about the true word of God.

 

 

[coheir]

Am I missing an article link in the OP? I've read members responding to, 'the article', but I do not see a link.

 

I copied the sentence from that OP as pertains to Constantine ("Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." ) and found this site: Bible Origins

 

I think if Constanting did want to coalesce the Roman empire into one faith, he'd be a wise dictator to create a heavenly authority in the image and likeness of the earthly one that those he sought to conquer could relate to. A monotheistic celestial leader.

Therefore, adding the scripture that proclaims all scripture is God breathed would cement that unquestionable vehicle for proof and conversion.

 

I've always been fascinated by the origins of today's Bible. What I think stumps many seekers in that pursuit is that scholars always say there are no autographs to be found so as to know the first writings that predated the first Bible. While scrolls, and epistles, which are letters, remain either in whole or in fragments. And yet some find it odd that while the apostle Paul was executed somehow all his letters would not only be preserved, but deemed worthy of occupying most of the new testament.

 

That which is suppose to be Jesus' message to the world. And his words delivered by Christ himself occupy only a small portion of the new testament. That primacy, Paul's letters outnumbering Christ's own words, is very confusing as to what Christians, Christ followers, are to believe when a Pharisee who never knew Christ in the flesh wrote most of the new testament, more than what is attributed to Jesus himself, far more in fact, that is to lead people to Christ.

 

This is a great thread. I hope to learn those things that will help clear the confusion I have in seeking the honest truth about the true word of God.

The article can be found in the op last four words of the post, then later I posted another article. for some reason this bold

type sorry for that .

[a-seeker]

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine  offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins.

 

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

Hello baseball,

 

This is a historical question.  The formation of the canon was NOT an ad hoc process initiated by Constantine.  Constantine had political reasons for settling theological issues (btw he embraced Christianity but did not "convert" to it.  He was a very, very shrewd politician, using vague language which appealed to both Christians and pagans--it was not until just before his death that he took baptism, a delay which may or may not have been due to the belief that baptism cleansed sins and therefore the best time to receive it was before death).

 

But canonization was merely the official recognition of what was tacitly accepted as authoritative.  It required "official recognition" not because people were undecided, but because others were claiming a different list of authoritative texts (Marcion's canon).  The 66 books were already recognized as authoritative by the time we get to Constantine.

 

So the short answer is, no.  The books we have are NOT the result of bribes or hasty decisions.

 

That is to the best of my knowledge, any modifications or corrections are welcome

[a-seeker]

Here is a chronology of books listed as authoritative, disputed, and rejected as canonical (though still valued).  It comes from primary sources (ancient documents).  Note that the "absence" of books do not mean that they were not authoritative.

 

From 180 A.D. we have from Irenaeus the 4 gospels, 12 epistles from Paul (although Philemon is not mentioned); 1 Peter; 1, 2 John. James and Hebrews not mentioned)

 

From 196, in Tertullian's writings we have 4 gospels; Acts; 13 epistles from Paul; 1 John 1 Peter and Jude.  Once more, the absence of texts does not mean they were not authoritative.  These authors were not making a list.  So this is a cumulative process.

 

In 200 from Origen we have once more the gospels; Revelation, 1 John, Hebrews.  2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John seem to be disputed.

 

By the time we get to Athanasius in 367 the entire current canon is listed as authoritative.

 

hope that helps

 

clb

[Atwood]

The origin of the Bible is that the Bible was God-breathed, just as the Heavens were so made. Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

[a-seeker]

The origin of the Bible is that the Bible was God-breathed, just as the Heavens were so made. Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

 

I believe the OP was interested in the "historical" origins of the book, not the supreme cause.  There are different types of "origin".  Is your physical origin from your parents, or from God?  Well, you would have to say both, but you would mean two very different, though perfectly compatible, things.

 

clb

[FreeinChrist]

 

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine  offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins.

 

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

Hello baseball,

 

This is a historical question.  The formation of the canon was NOT an ad hoc process initiated by Constantine.  Constantine had political reasons for settling theological issues (btw he embraced Christianity but did not "convert" to it.  He was a very, very shrewd politician, using vague language which appealed to both Christians and pagans--it was not until just before his death that he took baptism, a delay which may or may not have been due to the belief that baptism cleansed sins and therefore the best time to receive it was before death).

 

But canonization was merely the official recognition of what was tacitly accepted as authoritative.  It required "official recognition" not because people were undecided, but because others were claiming a different list of authoritative texts (Marcion's canon).  The 66 books were already recognized as authoritative by the time we get to Constantine.

 

So the short answer is, no.  The books we have are NOT the result of bribes or hasty decisions.

 

That is to the best of my knowledge, any modifications or corrections are welcome

 

 

 

Here is a chronology of books listed as authoritative, disputed, and rejected as canonical (though still valued).  It comes from primary sources (ancient documents).  Note that the "absence" of books do not mean that they were not authoritative.

 

From 180 A.D. we have from Irenaeus the 4 gospels, 12 epistles from Paul (although Philemon is not mentioned); 1 Peter; 1, 2 John. James and Hebrews not mentioned)

 

From 196, in Tertullian's writings we have 4 gospels; Acts; 13 epistles from Paul; 1 John 1 Peter and Jude.  Once more, the absence of texts does not mean they were not authoritative.  These authors were not making a list.  So this is a cumulative process.

 

In 200 from Origen we have once more the gospels; Revelation, 1 John, Hebrews.  2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John seem to be disputed.

 

By the time we get to Athanasius in 367 the entire current canon is listed as authoritative.

 

hope that helps

 

clb

 

Great respond Conner, I totally agree with your assessment.

 

When the Canon of the New Testament was decided upon the church had three basic requirements:

1)  Apostolic Origin; that is the Book was somehow connected to an Apostle of Jesus Christ, not necessarily authored by, for we see that Mark was not an Apostle but was closely connected to Peter along with Paul.  In all likelihood was telling the Gospel from Peter's point of view.

2)  Recognition by the Churches; in other words did Christian Churches use thee books in their services.  

3)  Content of the Book; if the Content was glorifying to God and edifying to the Church it was the final of the Three test as to whether it would be canonize.

 

The grass withereth the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 40:8

Many people look at this verse and think it is referring to the Old Testament or Tanakh, but if you read the passage in it entirely Isaiah 40:1-11, you will see that it is referring the New Testament.  Peter even quote this passage and tells us it is referring to the Gospel.

24)  For all flesh is as grass, and the glory of man as the flower of grass.  The grass withereth, and the flower thereof faileth away.

25)  But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.  And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.

I Peter 1:24-25

This is also the promise message of the Lord who is the Messenger of the New Covenant, Malachi 3:1.

[rjp34652]

Im ultimately on a quest to concrete my current belief in Christianity. Upon my search I ran into this article which claims that "one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Saying that Constantine  offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. This is really disappointing if this is true because I am just starting to really get into reading the bible.. The article I found for this is located at deism.com/bibleorigins.

 

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why this article is false? I would love to be assured that it is not true. Please help me. Thank you!

Seems to me that more credence is being paid to an article with outlandish claims than to scripture itself.

 

Don't believe every lie you read, especially in these times.   Seek the truth in the pages of God's Word, not in fabrications of scoffers.  What do you expect these people to write anyway?

 

Study the Bible and see for yourself if it does or does not speak the truth within its own pages.   Embrace Jesus Christ.   Shun lies and media rubbish.

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...