they say that the bible is inspired by God to man. so the bible therefore is written by inspired men. but when someone is inspired and writes about what he's inspired about, isn't it written in symbols and abstracts and not in complete accuracy?

Apparently not always. There are quite a few examples of symbolic language in Scriptures, and it's obviously not meant to be a science text, or a detailed description of anything, but not all of the Scriptures are particularly symbolic in language. Having said that, it is interesting that most passages, even when taken in context seem to have more than just a literal meaning, so maybe it is all written with a "symbolic" taste to it.

There's also the issue of "dual authorship" to consider. From the Christian point of view, it is true that the Bible was inspired by God and written to all people for all time. But at the same time it was written by a particular person (or group of persons) to another person or group of persons. And these people wrote it in a particular place and time for another people also at a particular place and time, all with different histories and reasons for writing.

I agree somewhat with IamsSon that there is a deeper meaning to almost all the Bible on the basis of this dual authorship - the message for those who it was written for, and the message it was written for all of us in all times who live outside that culture and time period.

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Then more than 200 translation errors must also be God-inspired.

Something most interestingly unacknowledged by Christianity is that, if the Bible was written by men who were alleged conduits of the Absolute Word of "God," wouldn't the men at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) who picked and chose which books would comprise the Bible have been equally (allegedly) inspired by the Almighty? There's a remarkable silence on that question. Was "God" responsible for the editors of the Bible? I think not.

inspiration is the same be it writing the bible, koran , Harry Potter , painting a portrait or sculpting a bust. there is no difference in how it feels . It can pop 'out of nowhere' or a view , a sound , a smell , a dream , a feeling. People were no more inspired then than they are now. By God in any area.

yet the inspiration never makes it to the page , canvas , film exactly as first envisioned. Our personal , cultural , social and emotional influences affect what ever it is - be it the bible or the next Tim Burton film.

and just because one thinks something is God inspired doesn't mean it is. I could truely be writing with God as my inspiration and tell you God doesn't discriminate and all of us go to 'heaven' the good the bad and the indifferent. no savior or religion necessary ( and that is what God tells me) but I can't prove it's God inspired - and neither can anyone else about the bible.

but inspiration ? exciting. and then when I feel it - like when painting. I'm not even aware I'm painting , it becomes automatic in a sense. AKA in the zone .

One point that goes missing often though is the largely unanimous verdicts of said Council. There have been all manner of people who chose to write that there was great debate and much arguing, but the Council really only confirmed what everyone already believed at the time. The divinity of Jesus, for example, was voted on by 300 bishops, with the final vote being a decisive 298-2 for divinity. That didn't stop Dan Brown from calling it a "close vote" in The Da Vinci Code nor has it stopped people from making unsubstantiated comments that the bishops were threatened and only voted as they did out of fear of their lives (the lack of documentation of this being put down to their fear of writing down their concerns on paper).

I believe that the majority of the Bible belongs right where it is. The gnostic gospels were written far far far too late to be even remotely related to the Apostles. The earliest of those gnostic texts being the late 2nd Century AD. That's at the very least half a century later than the oldest of the four gospel accounts (John, likely written somewhere between 100-125AD).

On a personal level, there are only two books I consider to be of contentious nature in the Bible - the aforementioned gospel of John (the other three gospels all could have conceivably been written by those who lived at or very near the time of Jesus, though conservative dating and a lot of old age might place John in that timeframe also), and the Old Testament book of Enoch (and this is based on the poitn of issue that the New Testament quotes that book in Jude).

The Bible we have today is very similar to the one that was accepted by first and second century Chrsitians, though as with translating anything from one language to another there are always difficulties (the "translation errors" mentioned ina previous post). That doesn't take away from what the earliest texts actually say, which have remained constant throughout (the fact that we can point to translation errors or additions attests to this fact, which contrary to what many people see as a downfall, I see a strength - that we can be so certain of what the original documents said).

To say that the bishops at Nicaea "picked and chose" which books went in ignores that the large majority already had the same beliefs about which ones belonged in there (on the basis of the evidence I have already suggested).

Just a thought,

...to infer that the words are of such unsurpassing exellence is just absurd .... flawless and above reproach is simply not the case, by example .... IMO

Nice comment!

The scripture testifies that scripture is "God Breathed" in the Greek. Those of us who believe view it as Lt. Ripley put it in a sense. God is able to breath through his servants to inspire the creation of the holy words on the pages. That's not to say that "human" filter doesn't sometimes effect the writing. The apostles and many early disciples beleived that Christ would return in their time. They were obviously in error and God did not see fit to correct their assumptions.

The scripture testifies of itself that it is more than words on a page. It is "living, breathing, and able to divide assunder between soul and spirit." I find this to be true in my life. The scriptures are powerful when combined with faith and a regenerate human spirit. Without the regeneration factor, a person is blind to the spirit behind the words. It's like trying to turn on a light during a power outage.

Lastly, we believe that the eternal God who stretched out the heavens and created us in his image is capable of preserving his word in the form he desires down through the ages. Even in the face of Satanic attack, persecutions in the extreme, the bible is here today. It is a guide for those who seek truth.

I'd probably agree with most of what you say, yeti. Some things i think lead to a slippery slope of what defines "inspiration" (and how does personal opinion affect that inspiration)..... but I just wanted to clarify this particular point. Do you mean that you believe the Bible asserts that Jesus was supposed to return in their lifetimes (eg, Matthew 24) or are you simply referring to the beliefs that some of the early Christians had about Jesus' return?

The Council of Nicea (325 AD) was not a Council of general agreement .the Bishops were under pressure from Constantine to reach some sort of agreement ,The divinity of Jesus was one sticking point







"More than half of the council's time was devoted to a major controversy that had been sweeping Christianity for a number of years, and the disposition of that controversy was the primary reason for calling the council. A man named Arius made the observation that Jesus Christ was called the "Son of God." Now, in our normal human experience, a father exists before his son ever exists. Or, more to the point, there is a time when the son did not exist, namely all prior eternity.
If Christ was the Son of God, then that implies that there was a time when only the father existed, as in human experience. Therefore, Christ cannot be divine, since a divine being would always have existed.
The council debated whether Christ was divine or whether he was simply a human tool of God. Constantine took the position that Christ was divine. Eusebius took the opposing position, along with 200 other bishops, that Christ was not divine. The bishops were asked to express their views on the subject and soon realized that disagreement with the emperor's view would lead to dire consequences. Many of them eventually turned silent. At the conclusion of the debates two of them remained adamant that Christ was not divine. Constantine declared them banished and excommunicated. Incredibly, the council finally settled the matter by voting. It declared that Christ was divine.
And so billions of Christians, over the centuries, have been taught that Christ is divine, not based on fact, but based on a vote. If the Council of Nicea had voted differently, then the faithful would not know of Christ as divine.
At the conclusion of the council, Constantine addressed a letter to the bishops and the people, in which he said: "If any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let his depraved doctrine be suppressed but also, that no memorial of him may be, by any means left. This, therefore I decree, that if any one shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death." One would think that Arius would be dead meat at that point, but strangely he was only banished. He returned in later years and was readmitted to the church, having recanted.
The last part of the bottom legend in the picture mentioned above reads: "CHRISTUS DEI PATRI CONSUBSTANIALIS DECLARATUR PIETAS CONDEMNATUR," which translates: "The declaration that Christ and God the Father are only similar (and therefore not equal) is condemned."
One would also think that the Council of Nicea would have ended the Arian dispute, but it was far from over. Constantine died in 330 AD and was therefore not around any more to impose his decree. By 359 AD, bishops were once again engaged in furious debate over the Arian matter and it was a hot subject in Constantinople. Two church councils, one at Selenica and one at Rimini declared that the Son is only "similar" to the Father, thereby overturning the decision of the Council of Nicea and declaring to the world that Christ was not divine. Our recently introduced friend, Jerome, complained at this time "The whole world groans and marvels to find itself Arian." A later church council reinstated the decision of Nicea and Christ was finally divine for all time.
The Roman Catholic Church is not capable of directly describing the Arian controversy to the faithful, because to do so would reveal that it was not settled whether Christ was divine until the 4^th century. If one looks up "Councils of the Church" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, one will find all the councils listed except the First Council of Nicea, however it is mentioned in a separate section. In that section, the Arius controversy is mentioned extremely briefly and offhandedly. The reader is not told that the heresy was the main reason for calling the council in the first place and not even a brief gist of the controversy is presented.
For more than 100 years after the Council of Nicea, there were dozens of church councils, each reversing the decrees of the other and oftentimes excommunicating each other's groups. It is amazing to visualize assembled groups of bishops deciding matters with no facts whatsoever. They would simply agree among themselves whether something was true or not.
In the time of Constantine, there was a large influx into the Christian clergy. It was an attractive way to escape the heavy burden of responsibility to the state. It reached such proportions that Constantine was forced to issue an edict restricting the numbers of those who could enter the clergy. In modern Israel the ultra orthodox are not serving in the military, because they are all rabbis. History repeats itself.
The Council of Nicea marked the culmination of tendencies that had been giving Christianity a different direction for over a century. An elaborate church organization and an increasingly complex ceremonial were part of an institution quite foreign to the story of Christ's simple ministry. The Greeks, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, developed a penchant for theological debate, while the Romans had a preoccupation with church law and organization. In the early centuries of the church a gradual shift developed away from the insistence of how a Christian must behave to the less burdensome commitment as to what a Christian must believe. This facilitated the rapid growth of Christianity."
http://www2.xlibris.com/Bookstore/book_exc...asp?bookid=1674

There can be little doubt that the story of Noah, for example, dates back at least as far as the Epic of Gilgamesh and was passed from generation to generation until written in a form that found its way into Genesis. Now the question becomes, "Who was 'inspired'?" Was the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh inspired by God since it woud filter down through centuries into the Bible?

Were the typographical errors of the Gutenberg Bible equally inspired by God? Or was William Tyndale so divinely inspired? The commission created the King James version were so inspired?

Good questions, not sure how they could be answered though.

I would find the bible to be more majestic as a work of art were the credit for the inspiration be granted to those who actually wrote it, rather than calved off to some deity implying the people were simply empty vessels shorn of imagination and self-inspiration.

Any great work of art is down to the talent of the artist, so it is with great books - such as the bible.

Nicely stated Leo.

I meant that at least some of the apostles were of the opinion that Christ's return was imminent. Specifically, Paul, John, and Peter, off the top of my head. In Corinthians Paul tells believers that they should live in the manner in which they were called because the time was so short. For example, if you're not married, don't seek a wife, etc. That was my point. They believed that Christ would probably return in their life times and God didn't correct them on it, and even let some of these comments stay in scripture. Obviously, the scriptures are designed to lead people to believe and be saved, period.

Those who have the Spirit received through reading of the Word and prayer know what it is. For those who do not you can hardly blame them for being ignorant of this fact and it is hardly worth attempting to convince them of the Truth.

I'm sorry, Clovis, because most of your posts are thoughtful and intelligently presented, but this is just about the most sanctimonious, arrogant claptrap I think I've read on this site.

I agree, Leo. There are great literary works representing astonishing wisdom but the authors utilized that wisdom to declare that their words were "their truths," not "THE truth." It is likely that Kilbran, the Dalai Lama and yes, Richard Bach were inspired to create such probing thoughts but they do not assign that inspiration as their personal, direct link to God.

I sometimes get the impression that such "inspiration" is merely a form of saying that "they" are the spiritual insiders while the rest of us are the spiritually impoverished outsiders.

Thanks, Expat.

Each persons' spiritual experience is unique to that individual, so, in that sense, we are all both insiders and outsiders. Reading a book such as Jonathan Livingston Seagull won't mean a personsharing Richard Bach's spiritual experience, but will allow them to be able to describe their own in the terms Bach uses to describe his.

I am skeptical of those religions which promote a shared experience (such as most do) as we are all unique in our thoughts and perceptions. Similarly, reading the bible might povoke a spiritual experience, but it will not be that of those who wrote it. This simple truth is lost in the blindness of religious belief.

Thanks, IS. As always, what you think means a lot to me

It would not and could not make sense to to those who never had the experience of the Spirit or who write it off as mere subjective experience. Trust me though in that my words were written in mind for an audience of believers and in notifying them that their attempts to argue whether or not the Bible was inspired by God will not lead to any sort of fruition because believers and non-believers are clearly working from different frameworks. I understand the view of the non-believer and I do not discourage it because without the Spirit the Bible remains just a bunch of words and rightfully so and should not be accepted as nothing more by them. Their view does not define ours and ours does not define theirs. As far as cultural relevance it is best to understand that in some ways we are in two different cultures when it comes to faith and so our views on relevance towards the Bible are not going to be the same but that does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. It just means there are two different audiences. And that is generalizing because there are all sorts of shades of color and this is not a black and white issue for many secularist do see some truth in some parts of the script even though they do not see any deity within it. On the other hand many believers also see some validity within the scriptures but reject wholesale other parts that do not align with their beliefs.

And let's remember that Bach ends "Illusions" with the comment, "Of course, I might be wrong about everything." Ah, if some religions could learn that.

If some religions could learn that they would be as foolish to follow your ideology as you would be to theirs. The problem is not in how we choose to live but in how we expect others to live as we do. That is the lesson everyone should learn not just the religious.

We all have been raised in a society that has laws to follow, break them and you are laying up in a cell in some prison...so due to this society, it is all we have ever known, so obviously we know what is right and what is wrong

Then it boils down to what lays in human nature...who you naturally are deep down as a person...it all depends on how your parents where etc...but so many are born good and remain that way...when a lot of them turn bad, it is under the influence of others...so its up to them what is right or wrong...again choice

but you dont need a book to tell you how to live....if you believe God gave you a free mind..then use it...why cling on to others that are stuck to the one thing? why cant you go off and find your own way?...<--I asked myself that long ago..and followed my heart and not the rest of the salmon up the river

Again if some choose a book, which becomes their own way, and others do not, which they are following others in this thought as well, there should be no issue. The real problem is either group telling the other they are wrong. When such people do such it does not define either group but merely the narrow mindedness and intolerance of that speaker alone.

You fail to realize that no one except the mentally insane truly go their own way. Everyone emulates others. We are nothing but millions of life sources with rarely an original thought or idea amongst us. All has been done under the sun. We are mere blank discs that get programmed in some way or another and then change that programming here and there and this on a macro level is known as acculturation. Acculturation is when societies share ideas with each other and then develop further through this interchange but in the end they remain distinct.

Ex and Leo, i have to posit with you both on this Clovis is generally very humble and gracious , to infer that christians are the only inspired ones is just silliness ....

i actaully thought along the lines of you Ex.. tthat their are great works of literature that I would call far more inspired then the bible....and many scientists who have made contributions that have benefitted us all that are inspired...life is inspiring and to limit it to one book is just naive..IMO....

inspiraton has no boundries clovis....ask any mother that ses her child for the first time, ask any one who has ever saw a sunset or lsiteind to mozart or watched a ballet ... ask any person that has fallen in love etc .. all of life is the insipration, no one person has the exclusive on it...... ..
because many of us do not type post after post trying to convince others of the sacredness of of life and all its wonders doesn't mean we are void of this, what it means is that there comes a point when no words are needed because we know we are all touched by life in a way that has meaning for us and we honor all others paths and delight in them as equals.........



perhaps you mis understand inspiraiton....

You are clearly off the mark if you believe that just because someone believes the Word is divinely inspired that no one else could be inspired, divinely or otherwise.

Perhaps your implied accusation that I misunderstand that word or its definition is ungrounded? But now that you bring it up there is a difference between the concepts of divine inspiration and the inspiration you speak of. No one should confuse the terms even if they refuse to believe in the validity of the first they should not equate it with the second. They are two totally different concepts and I understand the differences between both. I am a big fan of the inspiration you speak of though and it is one of the joys of life.

I did say the word was inspired by God is a belief Christians hold onto but never did I mean that is the only type of inspiration there is. Never did I claim Christians are the only ones who are inspired or inspired by God. In many ways God does inspire those exactly the way you described but whether or not that inspiration is from God or from our own consciousness and connection to the world at large is a different topic altogether.

That is because no one likes to be judged..its all in human nature...even from those that are doing the judging, when the shoe is on the other foot, they too hate being judged


What you fail to do is listen to what others say ..(not trying to be horrid...sorry if it sounds as such)..but what I mean is...you get caught up with non beleivers (mainly the atheists) and the beleivers (mainly the christians) and you see the odd muslim or Jew on the board....but what about those that step back and dont follow a manual...that like to think for themselves?

I went my own way..and long may it continue...I dont tell people they are doomed...I dont tell them they MUST accept God...I don't do any of these things BECAUSE I consider myself a deent human being that believes in live and let live...If God truly exists, then God will be the only one to judge others...not me...so why make up lies on something I have no real proof of??

If I wanted to raise myself up on a high platform..then YES I would cast judgement and use my faith as a way out of it all....but that would make me look so self centred and I would strike so many as narrow-minded.
.AND I would contradict myself when I utter the words ---> my relationship with God is a personal one....<--of course I would be contradicting myself saying that..especially when all I have done is throw negative judgement...that makes others feel bad....nuts to that...I may be one mean cow at times..but I still have a heart behind it all

I listened...actually read...and disagreed and also find your view hypocritical in that one breath you claim not to judge others and then turn around and do so by implying all those who follow the Book are somehow inferior. Do try and notice I did not say you were hypocritical but said your view in this one point is hypocritical.

thankyou for clarifying .......

So all you are just bothered about what you feel may be implied?? but it wasnt actually stated as such?? and all because you made a choice to follow a book, so now you feel somewhat annoyed?? this is my fault how?

Clovis I didnt twist your arm to follow any book...if I truly believed that you do need a book to guide you, then don't you think that I too would be using a book for guidence?? well??

What you fail to see is..those words I used about ANY book..was coming from my personal beliefs..if I didnt personally believe in them..then its pretty darn pointless....

I never insulted anyone...and you know it..but you took it the wrong way because you follow a book...that is not my problem...at least one thing is for sure though...when I speak of judging..on this board...I ALWAYS WILL mean the negative judgement...and Clovis..I never passed any ---> OMG you are so DOOMED..you are going to suffer for following a book <--------no...I simply stated how I feel confident enough NOT to use a book...I am and I do believe SMART enough to know how to lead a good life and STILL include God

Now if any of this annoys you..sorry....but at least im not condeming you to a hell hole..nor am I telling you you are evil and OMG you are so wrong...I cant do that... like I said before, it's not my palce

I find nothing I disagree with in that post BM just please keep in mind that people who follow books can be confident without them.



thankyou for understanding for truly there is nothing worse than someone misunderstanding you and usually that falls back on the speaker and not the audience so I had to attempt to clarify my position in that vain knowing if others believed otherwise it would be mainly my fault and not theirs.

I dont mean to make it sound negative...I was just saying that with your own good nature..you naturally know whats right and wrong..and I believe you would with or without a book...

I believe if you remove the book..and go on your own...I seriously doubt you would turn into a bad person <--do you see what I am trying to say?

If you believe in yourself, and you like to be somewhat unigue...what is wrong with going out alone and doing things differently? if it works, then why not?

BUT........if you believe a book is just a tool to inspire you..then how can that be wrong?? if it feels right, so be it...its all about how happy you are...right??

Well we are in total agreement now even if we are coming from opposite sides of the aisle. I totally understand your view and agree with it. There is also another view which is biblical that states for those who do not follow the Bible they still have the law written on their hearts. I know this detracts a bit from your point even if it agrees with it but I do truly believe Bible or no Bible, regardless if I ever heard of it or not, that I would still agree that people basically know what is right or wrong in the end.


Anne Frank, someone whom I admire greatly, says it best even if she is being a bit idealistic:



source

Oh yes very much so....

But when I speak of books..I did mean any book..and guess what, I also meant other fictional books...like IE - Vampire books (sounds silly to some of us)...but look at the amount of people even here on UM, that are so deadly serious with it, and truly believe its a way of life..they have taken it all in and well dare you tell them they are wrong...

IMO books in general are a good source of knowledge...but it is up to you on how you take it all in....the bible is seen as a good tool of inspiration for so many...but there are things that are not mentioned in that bible that even you yourself may believe is wrong.......IE - child abuse/sex offenders on children...ok granted it is NOT mentioned as sinful or wrong..but you know yourself that it is pretty sick and wrong to do this to a small child who is defenceless...right?? you know this because your good nature says so.........................if I am wrong well I only used that as a tiny example lol

I've heard this opinion quite a bit around here. It's just not true. Maybe it seems like it to some. There's nothing sanctimonious or "holier than thou" about it - though I've heard that used as well. It's simple; you want to play the nice golf course at the country club - you've got to be a member. The nice thing about this one (and what makes it NOT sanctimonious) is that membership is open to all. This membership has eternal benefits and doesn't cost 150 grand a year.

The analogy falls apart when one considers that many believe this to be the only country club with legitimacy.
The "members" are the ones not only with a card for the dining room but for heaven as well.
The club was founded by the son of God.
The club's rule book was divinely inspired.
And if you are not a member of THIS club, you are simply out of the spiritual game.

Say you're walking down the street and you find two shiny gemstones like diamonds. You pick them up and rejoice - yeah I've found diamonds! You're psyched. You take them to a gemologist and he tells you that you have two beautiful diamonds. They are both shiny, clear and reflect light nicely. The problem is that one is a real diamond, and one is a CZ. Which one is worth more? The scriptures represent the real diamond.

Very nice Yetiman your analogies are spot on. There is nothing wrong to take pride in the Word and those who wish to make us feel ashamed for it are merely secular evangelist. Sure it says things people take offense at but guess what...those things are written and meant only for us believers to follow and no one else has to. It demands the best from us but at the same time it tells us many will not believe.

Take the episode in Acts 19 where the believers were accused of blaspheming Artemis which would have been tantamount to insulting the followers of Artemis. It turns out they were not guilty of this charge at all. Now while many say there is danger of those who use the Bible as a weapon to attack other beliefs it is a problem then they have a point but when they say it is the fault of the Bible itself and not evil men who wish to dictate and control then they simply fail to differentiate. Guess who will have better chances at changing the face of Christianity? The one merely saying the Bible is outdated or ones like some of us who follow it but at the same time encourage others not to judge for when you condemn another you condemn yourself (Luke 6:37) and that no one has the right to condemn you except your very own heart (1 John 3:20) and the Spirit which convicts (John 16:8). Again this view is mainly applicable towards the believer but the scriptures are both so that non-believers can understand our view but also for believers to follow.

In the end though the Word is only for believers to follow and they should not expect non-believers to follow it in the least.

Some Writings inspired By Father, Or spirit, are experiences actually experienced by the individual , who is doing thye writing. and sometimes it is just what comes to mind when the pen hits the paper.
And sometimes it is direct comunication from Father, Or spirit.

I won't speculate on the Bible, But I have all three in My writings inspired By God ()Fathert and Mother)

God did not die after The bible was written, and is not the only book to be inspired By The infinate One who created all spirit , which makes up everything in this and every Universe..

If everything about God and spirit could fit in that one book, God would be pretty limited, and God is not limited.

Ever watch Disney?

Had your heart strings Jerked?,From watching a feel Good movie?,, Thats Mother's ( The Holy Spirit's) Inspiration .

What I have learned fro talking Directly with Father and Mother(God) , I have written down, when it is father's words I quote Father directly.

Love Omnaka.

As I said, those who wish to debate the unanimity of the vote resort to Conspiracy theories about the pressure that Constantine put on them. Not a single shred of supporting documentation is provided, and this article is an excellent example of this conjecture. It all comes down to the point that people don't want to believe that Christians always understood Jesus to be divine - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God (John 1:1-2). This chapter then goes on to leave us in no doubt that "the Word" spoken of is Jesus. The vast majority of bishops already believed Jesus was divine, and the 298-2 vote reflects that unanimous understanding.

Sorry, FW, but your article states that there was pressure from Constantine, but does not provide any evidence for this. Yes, I admit that it is unfortunate that the two dissenting bishops were banished, but that is not an argument that Constantine pressured them. It's just as likely (imo, moreso actually) that they were banished to keep a totally united front. And as you mentioned, 10 years later they were readmitted, though this is the first I have heard that their return was because they recanted - is there evidence for this too, or are they just positing more 1"guesses" for the return - edit to add: Modern Arian Christianity does not believe the divinity of Jesus. If Arius recanted, then why call this modern group "Arian Christians"?

There is no evidene of Constantine pressuring the bishops. There is every evidence to suggest that the early Chrsitians believed Jesus was already divine and the point of the Council was to come together to simply unify Christianity under a set of beliefs that most of them already believed.

Good day, FW.

As I said previously Nicea was not the cosy council you are portraying it to be ,there was a lot of dissent .Constantine did exert pressure on the Bishops ,not on any particular belief because he couldn't care less what they believed all he wanted was an agreement .As to the divinity of Jesus it wasn't universally accepted



Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a god. On the other hand, God has been in existence forever. Arius felt that any attempt to recognize the deity of Christ would blur the lines between Christianity and the Pagan religions. If Christianity recognized two separate gods, the Father and Jesus, it would become a polytheistic religion. Athanasius (296 - 373 CE) argued that Jesus must be divine, because otherwise, he could not be the Savior. The atonement would not have been possible.

Both Arius and Athanasius had large, evenly matched followings among the bishops. Emotions ran high. The council, under intense pressure from Emperor Constantine, resolved its deadlock by a close vote in favor of Athanasius. The dissenting bishops were offered two options: to sign the settlement at Nicea or be exiled. The bishops produced the Nicene Creed, which declared that Jesus Christ was "of one substance with the Father." This did not immediately settle the question of the divinity of Christ; many bishops and churches refused to believe in the council's decision for decades.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm




fullywired

God has inspired all sorts of books , art , music .............the Koran claims to be God inspired and no one can say it isn't. ( no can one prove it is either , just as with the bible)

???? hey ! don't ignore that plank . lol while I dig out my speck.

Say you're walking down the street and you find two shiny gemstones like diamonds. You pick them up and rejoice - yeah I've found diamonds! You're psyched. You take them to a gemologist and he tells you that you have two beautiful diamonds. They are both shiny, clear and reflect light nicely.

The jeweler tells you that one is a real diamond and the other is a CZ but he really can't tell the difference. But he has a book on gems that was written by someone 5,000 years ago and it says that the first stone is the real diamond. The jeweler then tells you that if you believe in the book and thus believe that the first stone is the real diamond, it will be so.

This is more like the Scriptures.

Inspiration is perceived through our Soul, which connects our Body (Earthly plane) with our Spirit (Divine plane). Inspiration is just that, a Divine influence manifest to us on the Earthly plane, where we can understand it and use it.

As far as what I've read, The Christian bible was created out of the need for political control by the Roman Church

yea i read the same.........thats what I dont like about the RC..they blinking started all of this mess...what with putting their bible together, convincing people it is gods word and laying laws for people to live by..for what??..control power over people?? yea sounds about right..now look...that one faith has split in so many ways...and now we have born agains..which I cant ever understand the difference between them and the protestant christian..but regardless so many like to create more and more faiths that stem fromth ONE faith..the catholic faith...why couldnt they have just left it as it once was...before they put the bible together???

like this...

1st you had the Jews and their faith...
then a disciple takes it apon himself to travel to Rome..later is made POPE...christianity is born..the bible put to gether and preached...it speads like wild fire ...then someone PROTESTS the Catholic faith...protestants are formed..they grow and then others split from that church..building their own..and others split from that ..they keep splitting...break away after breakaway groups..all not happy with the one faith or the one way..all claiming others are wrong....killing those who arent like them...holy wars left right and centre..............

was it really worth it??

Well, before there were Jews there were Pagans and all the Abrahamic beliefs in my opinion stem from Paganism.