[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Athena Not odd, that the bible coming out of Nicaea is as it is. The Roman's had long applied the Law of Nature to legal matters. They ruled over many city/states each having their own legal systems, and often people from different city/states would have legal conflicts. In Roman court, they took what was common in both legal systems to come to a legal decision. The Nicaea council applied this same principle to religion. They took what was common from many sources and declared it to be God's truth. No deciet was intended. It was just a method for determining truth or what is best. Like democracy- majority rules. If this is what most people think, then it must be so. At least it is the best reasoning we have. This included ancient Sumerian stories carried by Hebrews, Egyptian theology, the mysticism from Persia, and Hellenic philosophy making Christianity decidedly different from Judaism. I don't think Christianity would have survived if I hadn't been for Paul making it okay for non circumcised people to be considered part of the new faith. Remember that circumsicion was about God's covenant with his chosen people. I don't think this should have been changed, and I think Christians should follow the bible more closely. I'll be back with information about Hellenized Jews, do you want anything else?

I agree that the Roman compilation of the Bible was not dishonest as such, but I do not consider it totally democratic as majority rules. Rome was ruled by Republican pyramid structure, and Roman and Hellenistic philosophy was dominant and largely decided the outcome of the Council of Nicaea.

The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the represent the only significant Biblical scriptural resource that would not be considered Romanized or Hellenized.

My next post will concern dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.