How nice was Nicea?

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

The best way to hide the truth is to be the one to tell his-story

MAYA EL,

In an attempt to remember HISStory…..that 'hiss' is the sound we attribute to a snake.....:) It seems to fit in on some level....:)

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by sky123

"law eye for eye and tooth for tooth", is an very Ancient law, probably Babylonian... Also used by the Roman's and Islamic Laws..... It was used as an excuse for retaliation or a compensating measure of justice. Maybe that's why Jesus never mentioned that the law came from God...

This law is also found in Exodus and Leviticus, and in both places, it is Yahweh who gives this law, among many other laws.

Matthew 15:4 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death" - This is Jesus talking, according to what was written down, this is a very very harsh law, but when you look at the at some of those translations ( kjv and using strong concordance ), it says: For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Which is quite different from what I can see and it make sense, there's a death when the child curses his parents, there's the death of their relationship.

Now, looking at Leviticus 20:9, it's clear that the it is about "being put to death", but the greek version may actually talk about what I just said above.

Some say that the law had to be very harsh for the coming of Christ, which is not quite true from my view, there were places on Earth and there were people on Earth that were quite peaceful, Buddha came into the world with some hundred of years before Christ and his teachings are full of wisdom! The world was not a dark place full of people acting like beasts, there were always good people.

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by Molearner

ThatMan,

Yes, Jesus had a different way and was teaching his way. His mission was to expand teachings to be inclusive to all people not just limited focus groups. Very recently on a different thread I responded to an observation by a poster that agape love was noted in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Here was my response to the question and I think that perhaps it might indirectly answer your question:

"This is a huge mistake that 'Christians' make....believing that the New and Old Testaments are in agreement. The key to understanding this is Luke 10:29 when the question was asked of Jesus...."And who is my neighbor ?". Jesus redefined 'neighbor' with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Leviticus 19:18 also says love your neighbor as yourself but the immediately preceding verses indicate that 'neighbor' referred to 'your people' meaning exclusively the Jews or tribe if you will. Later Deuteronomy 23:1-8 goes into detail of those who should be excluded from fellowship with the Jews....'even down to the tenth generation'. All of these things indicate that the Old Testament upheld the concept of duality.....us vs. them, us separate from them, etc.

The questions rightly come up on these forums from non-believers concerning the violence of the Old Testament believing that Christians are in lock step with the Old Testament and they question Christians how to reconcile these paradoxes. This is one of the answers, of course, and it is that Jesus redefined 'neighbor'. If anything the Old Testament law was for the survival and self-preservation of the Jews so that they could provide the lineage for the birth of Jesus. But when Jesus came he actually strengthened the law so that it would include all peoples and tribes.....not just the Jews. Essentially He introduced the concept of non-duality. Sadly to this day many religions(including Christianity) revert to the concept of duality.....i.e. attempting to distinguish themselves from others and in doing this they are guilty of judging others. In short, they become hypocrites to the teachings of Christ whom they profess to honor."

Yes, you are right, He welcomed all and this was really strange for the Jews of that time because their entire faith and set of laws was about staying away from the unbelievers, so to say, Jesus expanded the teachings of the OT, giving the true form of those teachings, this is my opinion.

That's your theory, my theory is this, the violence has nothing to do with the Supreme Being, it's was as sky123 says, cause and effect and they thought that those horrible events where punishments from God or commands from God, you know, to wipe out the Canaanites, which from the latest discovery, also worshiped Yahweh among many other gods. Yes, once again the world is divided, some conspiracy theories talk about a one world government, I only see division and more division.... Go to a christian forum and try to question the scriptures, not to disprove them, but to shed some light on their real meaning, and you will be accused and judged right away, and what I find more, people are afraid to talk about the scriptures, the christians, they are afraid, you show them what the verses say and they still have their own beliefs.

I talked with a woman from my country and I tried to explain that even before the fall, the sexual desire existed, without it, there's no procreation, God told them to multiply even before the fall... and she would not believe this, even when reading those bible verses from genesis...

Thank you all for your replies.

My initial impression is that there is general agreement that what is said by Scribes, Pharisees, Bishops, or whatever official sanctioned title they may go by, should not necessarily be taken as gospel. Yet, in the years following Constantine and the council, through much debate and struggling for power, what has become known as the "Holy Bible", emerged. It was the Scribes and Pharisees of the day (be they good or bad) that decided what would be sanctioned as the word of God and what would be cast off as heresies. Among the sanctioned works included in the official canon, are the four synoptic Gospels. In other words, it was the Bishops of the day (along with Constantine and his successors), that decided what would be considered, "Gospel", and what was not. What was not, which was much of what was circulating at the time, was declared dangerous and stomped out through any means necessary, violent or otherwise.

Here we are some 1700ish years later and we see that sanctioned text quoted again and again as the authority of what Jesus and God said or inspired to be said. We get far into the weeds regarding what an original word in Hebrew or Greek may have meant and how different that may be to our present day understanding. The apologists turn into contortionists to explain how some of the more shocking passages don't really mean what they appear to mean.

But the question I have, is how much of that "Holy word of God", that is included in the official canon, filtered from the plethora of beliefs about Jesus that circulated in the first 300 years of the faith, is there not for the sake of God, but for the sake of the interests of the powers of the day when that filtering was done, and then enforced by the sword and flame. And along those same lines, how many of the texts and Gospels of the day were excluded because they offended or threatened those same powers. How much wisdom, beyond the few scraps found in the Nag Hammadi texts, went up in flames in the church sanctioned book burning of those ancient times? Even today, when one quotes scripture from the Gospel of Thomas, they risk being corrected (thankfully not by fire anymore) by those who insist such text have been discredited and should not be payed any attention.

How much faith do you have that those Nicene Bishops, those Scribes and Pharisees of the Christian faith as sanctioned by Constantine and subsequent Roman Emperors, got it right? Just how much of the official "Holy Bible", with all its sacred scriptures, would Jesus really agree with, and just how much and which of Jesus's teachings may have been left on the cutting room floor. Which of those words are the "Word of God", and which are the words of men, included for their own vain purposes. Why do I get the feeling when I read about Jesus in the Bible, that sometimes, one of these things is not like the other, some of these things are not quite the same?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Thank you all for your replies.

My initial impression is that there is general agreement that what is said by Scribes, Pharisees, Bishops, or whatever official sanctioned title they may go by, should not necessarily be taken as gospel. Yet, in the years following Constantine and the council, through much debate and struggling for power, what has become know as the "Holy Bible", emerged. It was the Scribes and Pharisees of the day (be they good or bad) that decided what would be sanctioned as the word of God and what would be cast off as heresies. Among the sanctioned words included in the official cannon, are the four synoptic Gospels. In other words, it was the bishops of the day (along with Constantine and his successors), that decided what would be considered, "Gospel", and what was not. What was not, which was much of what was circulating at the time, was declared dangerous and stomped out through any means necessary, violent or otherwise.

The Bible that we know today came about differently then most people can imagine.

For example, in 2 Kings 22:8 the High Priest Hilkiah found the book of the Law in the Temple. Some authorities claim what the High Priest found in The Temple was the Book of Deuteronomy. The other books of the Law were added later. This happened about 400 B.C.E.

It wasn't till the Letter of Aristeas (mid-2nd century B.C.E.) that the Books of Moses were referred to as scriptures.

Even in Jesus' time, the Old Testament was not fully defined. In Luke 24:44 it appears Jesus was only aware of 3 limited parts of the Old Testament. He spoke "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”" which excludes Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, etc. This event happened after Jesus' resurrection.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by BigJohn


Even in Jesus' time, the Old Testament was not fully defined. In Luke 24:44 it appears Jesus was only aware of 3 limited parts of the Old Testament. He spoke [COLOR="Red"

"He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”"[/color] which excludes Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, etc. This event happened after Jesus' resurrection.

BigJohn,

That verse says that but earlier in vs.27 it is reported that He said all the prophets.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Molearner

BigJohn,

That verse says that but earlier in vs.27 it is reported that He said all the prophets.

After Jesus' resurrection, the Old Testament had not been 'canonized' yet.

The Book of Daniel almost did not make the 'cut'.

Look at the Septuagint LXX and the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint LXX, before Christ, contained more books!