Oh, ok, oh I wanna play. let me try this
The Easter Bunny existed, end of story.
There you go facts!
What's so wrong with that? If there was no "Committee", then there simply would be all kinds of beliefs mixed in with Christianity, and therefore, no clear anything on what Christianity should be about.
The point of a "committee' is to protect the teachings of Jesus from contamination, as the Bible aptly points to "wolves among sheep".
But...I know what you mean. You're hinting at some sort of conspiracy...just say it.
The second you come with more than "hearsay", the second you'll convince any of us.
We'll be waiting...though I'd be dead before anything solid is worth considering.
I understand the explanations as to why certain books are removed for the Protestant version. However, even within that version, Jesus himself quotes from an ancient Hebrew book which is not considered canon. This seems very odd, considering who Jesus is alleged to be.
Contradiction(s) - The Resurrection stories in the Gospels.
edit: It is an overstatement simply because it is not held amongst scholars with anything near that certainty.
Think about that for a moment. Christianity is very fractured today, there are competing Bibles all claiming Canonical authority, there is widespread disagreement of doctrine.
What if a group gathered today from amongst all Christian sects and decided what was Canon and what was Christianity. What would be the consequence? Who would lose out? What books would be added or removed from the Bible?
I can assure you that what would happen would likely be the reassertion of something more akin to Roman Catholicism than what exists now. The Bible would probably have the Apocrypha added to all versions. All sects other than this Roman Catholicish version would no longer be considered "Christian".
No, not a "conspiracy". However, what occurred was that a group that held beliefs long after the death of anyone who even knew those who knew those who knew those ... [insert some more]...who knew anyone that might have had exposure to Jesus decided what not only was Scripture, but what Christianity actually was. They did this based upon their beliefs and upon what Scriptures they accepted. I will admittedly assume, that it was likely to have all been determined by Majority opinion.
Think about that for a moment. Christianity is very fractured today, there are competing Bibles all claiming Canonical authority, there is widespread disagreement of doctrine. What if a group gathered today from amongst all Christian sects and decided what was Canon and what was Christianity. What would be the consequence? Who would lose out? What books would be added or removed from the Bible?
I can assure you that what would happen would likely be the reassertion of something more akin to Roman Catholicism than what exists now. The Bible would probably have the Apocrypha added to all versions. All sects other than this Roman Catholicish version would no longer be considered "Christian".
That is exactly what happened nearly 2 millenia ago within Christianity.
I don't disagree with you, in fact, I can't because you're telling the truth. But how does that mean the Christian religion is a false religion?
You once told me, that even though scientists disagree (not as vehemently, though) on the details of evolution, that doesn't mean its false.
Why aren't you willing to apply this logic to Christianity? Please, please spare me "because its supposed to be truth", because I just would like for you to answer directly, please sir.
No one can change the Bible, and you're posing an unlikely hypothetical, but to answer your question...I don't know.
You're projecting, as I simply don't know. But I understand your logic.
...and I wanted to add, I like your insistence on selling doubt and fear-mongering, trademarks of new atheism.
Not sure how I or other Atheists are "fear mongering" by stating such things, but Doubt is certainly something Theists should explore. To be so Certain about things based upon such a flimsy source is simply not a Reasonable position.
It is perfectly Reasonable to want to adopt a philosophical position for the purpose of shaping a better Society. Even some of what Jesus is alleged to have said could be beneficial in such an endeavour. However, the wholesale dogmatic adoption of an ancient writing such as the Bible is a completely different thing.
We as a whole have moved beyond what the Bible teaches. We have come to understand the immorality of Slavery, Genocide, the suppression of Women, and even more. It is only Dogmatic Theism that continues to have issue with some of these things. However, they only do this by ignoring what their holy books actually say on these issues. This is not just true of Christianity, but also applies to Islam and Judaism. It would not surprise me one bit if it also applies to Hinduism and most other Theisms.
This is why we want you to explore Doubt. You already employ it in your interpretations, but you continue to hold on to other things that are clearly not Just, Accurate, Loving, or Moral. The only reason you do so is because of a Dogmatic certainty in an outdated treatise of philosophical thought. It may have been revolutionary in its' time, but it isn't anymore and the flaws within it are holding back Humanity.
Peter was obviously not the first pope so the Church of Rome probably didnt actually exist until at least 400 years later than it claims to have come into existence.
i just dont see how the "new testament" could be non-fiction.
This is not just true of Christianity, but also applies to Islam and Judaism. It would not surprise me one bit if it also applies to Hinduism and most other Theisms.
The way I see it, doubt is in absence of evidence, meaning, if our beliefs were so false and flimsy, there would be overwhelming evidence and doubt would be needless -- we'd just not believe. I am under the opinion that claims (even claims of the falseness of religion and non-existence of God) need to be substantiated, though you may disagree. You can't provide evidence, doubt is a last ditch substitute.
I'm sure many would disagree, but that's just how I see it.
As far as your fear mongering is concerned, I think you are. Theorizing a potential theological war, and thus, ousting of dissidents is what this world doesn't need.