|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jul 17, 2009 11:28:44 GMT -5
This is completely historically false. Revelation is in the oldest extant New Testiment text (The Codex Sianaticus, 4th century), in the Vulgate (4th century), was accepted by Origin (discussed above, 2nd century who also included books since removed from accepted cannons), and was accepted (albeit with much debate) by every Catholic synod that decided such things until the time of Luther, who did want to remove it along with several other books. Your discussion agrees with my understanding of the history, but I've also heard it said that, when the canonical books of the Bible were chosen, Revelation was only added with the agreement that it would not be taught as prophecy.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 18, 2009 2:11:28 GMT -5
That would be interesting. Do you happen to know where that information came from, or to what canonical compilation it was referring?? I can swing a stick and hit references to the fact that it was controversial, but I don't think I've seen the particular claim that any compilation accepted it but not as prophecy. What WERE they going to teach it as?
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jul 18, 2009 13:47:34 GMT -5
That would be interesting. Do you happen to know where that information came from, or to what canonical compilation it was referring?? I can swing a stick and hit references to the fact that it was controversial, but I don't think I've seen the particular claim that any compilation accepted it but not as prophecy. What WERE they going to teach it as? Good question. I can't remember where I heard it, so basically, that's all I got.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jul 18, 2009 14:01:49 GMT -5
No, I think Maryland Bear is right---I remember my history professor making reference to it when we did a brief one-day lecture on the Council of Nicaea and how Christian canon basically rips off a dozen other religions. She was religious herself but refreshingly sane and rational and didn't take any of the story literally. I remember she said something about how Revelation wasn't meant to be taught as prophecy.
Dunno where she got it from either, but at least one or two other people HAVE heard of it this way.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 18, 2009 23:42:46 GMT -5
I DEMAND FURTHER INFORMATION! PROVIDE IT TO ME OR FEEL MY WRATH AND STUFF LIKE THAT GRRRR!
The Council of Nicea didn't actually set a cannon, though they did set like official dogma, so I assume that other cannon-setting meetings were bound by that when selecting cannon, to not pick anything that too blatantly disagreed with the official story.
Speaking of which, has anyone played the game Creedo? In the game, you have an agenda to push as official Christian theology at the Council of Nicea. Whoever gets all of their goals set as official dogma wins!
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Jul 19, 2009 13:33:27 GMT -5
I discuss those rapture retards with my boyfriend quite often. He's a christian and finds the whole rapture doctrine rather silly. From what he told me, the passages that the rapturites get their doctrine are from "apocalyptic" books. Not meaning "end of times" but that they are books that use codes and parables. None of it should be taken literally. I quip back that no one should take any of the Bible literally. Then we both laugh and have crazy monkey sex. Apocryphal. Technically, anything about the Christian End Times is apocalyptic.
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jul 20, 2009 7:05:09 GMT -5
Speaking of which, has anyone played the game Creedo? In the game, you have an agenda to push as official Christian theology at the Council of Nicea. Whoever gets all of their goals set as official dogma wins! I played it once and found it dull. It was marketed as being a "wacky" game, but it was actually pretty serious.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Jul 21, 2009 9:50:43 GMT -5
Speaking of which, has anyone played the game Creedo? In the game, you have an agenda to push as official Christian theology at the Council of Nicea. Whoever gets all of their goals set as official dogma wins! I played it once and found it dull. It was marketed as being a "wacky" game, but it was actually pretty serious. Even more "fun" is Catechic--the Catholic board game! Answer fun and exciting questions about Catholic doctrine while trying to get your evangelist sainted! When you're the only one in the family who knows your Catechism (and are no longer Catholic, to boot!) the game is primarily an exercise in futility.
|
|
|
Post by yojetak on Jul 21, 2009 10:00:07 GMT -5
I discuss those rapture retards with my boyfriend quite often. He's a christian and finds the whole rapture doctrine rather silly. From what he told me, the passages that the rapturites get their doctrine are from "apocalyptic" books. Not meaning "end of times" but that they are books that use codes and parables. None of it should be taken literally. I quip back that no one should take any of the Bible literally. Then we both laugh and have crazy monkey sex. Apocryphal. Technically, anything about the Christian End Times is apocalyptic. Really? Then he got it wrong. loooolz I get to rub it in his face.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jul 21, 2009 17:54:33 GMT -5
Apocryphal. Technically, anything about the Christian End Times is apocalyptic. Double-technical: I'm pretty sure "Apocalyptic" covers Jewish beliefs as well, possibly even Muslim. Marc
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 21, 2009 20:53:59 GMT -5
Apocryphal. Technically, anything about the Christian End Times is apocalyptic. Really? Then he got it wrong. loooolz I get to rub it in his face. He also has it wrong that the Rapture idea is *only* based on Revelation, as detailed at the beginning of the thread. Sometimes people are bad at their own religions. I also have a Christian boyfriend with whom I make mad humpings. He's reasonably knowledgeable about the Bible most of the time.
|
|