true religion (according to the teachings in Christianity) is to treat others with love and compassion. This teaching is displayed throughout the Bible, it is distinctive and cannot be ignored, yet people somehow manage to do so quite regularly.

It has to be taken within a much bigger context. To say the bible was inspired by God does not mean that one small piece of it can be taken to stand on its own to the exclusion of the rest. God inspired the whole book. Not just this one little piece of it.

This one little part could be taken out of context to justify salvation through works. I am not saying thats what you meant, but your presentation here does leave it open to misinterpretation. You have to be careful when you speak for God.

Godzman please.

Which Bible?

Which version?

Ah, therein lies the problem with quoting a translation of what's claimed to be scripture.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
Hypercrites

I think you have an equally large problem if you look at the process whereby some books were included and others were kept out. Who were the people who decided which books were inspired by God and is it safe to say these people had divine inspiration when making this determination?

I thought the Vatican had a profound affect on the translation. Am i wrong?

of the church and the Bishop of Rome was the senior of 5 Patriarchs. Constantine was trying to achieve church unity and they came up with the idea of a standardized bible. At this point, they threw out books not deemed to be divinely inspired and added others. If there is any point where the opinion of man got in the way of the word of God, then I think this is our point of greatest exposure to the risk. Thats the point I keep trying to bring up with Clara. I think this is a much more serious "interpretation" risk than a translation.

My reference to a translation of which version is in reference to the popular current use of any given Standardized version, in English. Because any given Standardized version is a conglomeration of many different original sources, there is no single, complete original document that can be pointed to as the source document. {Cristian, I hope you're paying attention to this! You and I have run into this problem before!}

But you're otherwise right. Anytime any evangelist steps up to proclaim a true religion or that "The Bible is the word of God", that's the first question I ask: Which version?

But I pose the same question to Muslims as well--FYI. Check out this thread for further details:
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3008
...and about 3 others in that same section (Religion).

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
Hypercrites

That's putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. There was no central Christian org in Rome while Rome was still pagan--and Rome was officially pagan until Constantine made Christianity legal. There was a Christian faction in Rome, but it wasn't central to squat; the apostles had dispersed far and wide, with Rome being only one of the places they dispersed to. What it sounds like to me is that you're repeating the Roman Catholic line of revisionist history.

Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople primarily because of the problem of the Praetorian Guard, who had gotten so powerful that they could install and depose emperors at whim, and these guys were the 100% pagan only real power in Rome.

Constantine presided over the First General Ecumenical Council and supervised the assembly of a Bible which put Old and New Testament together for the first time. It was subsequently translated into good ole Roman Empire Latin, and this became the Latin Vulgate version. Yes, books were tossed out to be excluded from this tome, and a good many of those thrown out can be found among the Gnostic Texts where you can find a truckload more of Peter's writings than you can in any current Standardized version. And the gospels of Thomas, NONE of which appear in the western Bible. Etc.
====================
OH! I have to add that this wasn't the idea of standardized version as this was the first version of its kind. Standardization efforts weren't attempted until America was colonized and the problem was in resolving the King's English (King James' English) with the American vernacular, and attempts to resolve this resulted in a myriad countless different translation versions.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
Hypercrites

You said, "Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople primarily because of the problem of the Praetorian Guard, who had gotten so powerful that they could install and depose emperors at whim, and these guys were the 100% pagan only real power in Rome."

There are a heck of a lot more factors in play than the Praetorian Guard. Also remember he came to power at the head of an Army that was much bigger than th Praetorian Guard. If he wanted to wipe them out, it certainly would have been within his power to do it.

The center of gravity had already moved east with Diocletian. True they had not picked Constantinople yet, but the east had already taken the senior position. For this reason alone, I think its misleading to overstate the importance of the Praetorian Guard.

You said, "That's putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. There was no central Christian org in Rome while Rome was still pagan--and Rome was officially pagan until Constantine made Christianity legal. There was a Christian faction in Rome, but it wasn't central to squat; the apostles had dispersed far and wide, with Rome being only one of the places they dispersed to. What it sounds like to me is that you're repeating the Roman Catholic line of revisionist history."

The part about Roman Catholic revisionist history hurts a little coming from someone who does not know me or where I am coming from. You talk about how I am trying to put the cart before the horse, but what about you? I always thought we should try to understand someone before we judge.

While historical proof is sketchy and inferences have to be made, I think its likely that Constantine was not any more a believer in Christ than in Sol Invictus at the time of his accension to the throne. His selection of Christianity was most likely for political expediency and this poses an interesting question. Why would a politicial opportunist align himself with a religion whose influence "wasn't central to squat"?

I contend that the Christian church had many followers within his army and within the population of Rome itself. These people were a means to an end and his conversion was a way of consolidating power.

As for the Pagan nature of Rome, it was Constantine himself who tried to make it the most Holy City outside of Jeruselem for the Christian faith. Look at the churches he built and the honors he conferred upon the Pope. Just because I recognized the Pope as the senior of the Patriarchs, however, does not mean I am saying he was the driving force behind the council. If your Catholic Revisionist statement was meant to infer I said that, then you are connecting dots in a way that is neither supported by my statements or my intentions.

The council presided over by Constantine was more a discussion between the religous leaders of Asia Minor, Syria & Egypt with almost no representation from the west. As such, I can easily agree that the Pope's influence was minimal at best.

While the Catholic Church may have had a huge influence on various translations of the bible, it was a nonfactor in the selection of the books to be included in the bible.