The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the canon of the bible!!

Over and over and over again I hear people say "the council of Nicea was where they figured out what was in the bible"

Im pretty much sick and tired of hearing it... so im writing this so I can simply post a link and smile from here on in...

The Council of Laodicea is where they settled the canon of the bible... though it was not the final discussion on the matter


CANON LX.

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Notice revelation was absent?

At the council of Nicaea the agenda involved establishing the date of Easter, and more importantly the Nature of Christ...

This was what is considered The Arian Heresy...

Both sides were Trinitarian...

One side wanted Jesus to be equal to the Father, and the other side led by Arius believed that Jesus was most definitely divine, but he was subordinate to the Father...

In any case we know how that turned out...

but the bottom line here is this...

The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the canon of the bible!!


The agenda of the Council of Nicaea included:
1.The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?

2.The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter

3.The Meletian schism

4.Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons
~Church structures: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
~Dignity of the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy
~Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
~Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
~Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy

Believe it or not people.... Dan Brown is an author of FICTION!!

Not gonna argue with what you have. It is sound. I do believe if more folks understood how the Bible came about it may clear some thing up for them.

From what I understand in the year 1607 several men took almost 3 years to rewrite the Bible. It was by order of King James. He had a certain set of rules that had to be followed. When the rewrite was complete it was given to King James for his approval...but the task was a bit too much for him...so he had Sir Frances Bacon edit it. It took Bacon around a year.

Also I was told that in the 3rd century around the year (255) there were around 200 gospels in use at this time.

Around the year (313) there were many arguments among Priests and Bishops about the Bible.

Around the year (325) Emperor Constantine gathered many religious leaders together in Nicaea to decide what Christianity should be...what writings to use...how they would present God. They decided that Jesus Christ would be a deity.

Today's King James Bible has 66 books in it...and it is missing 14 entire books that were in the original King James version in 1611.

a reply to: caladonea

I've never seen a 1611 KJV bible with 14 extra books

In the early few centuries there were a bunch of "gospels" going around... Some of them have turned up recently but the church made an extreme effort to destroy anything that didn't fall in line with what they taught...

Books and people... including Arius the opposing leader in that controversy

a reply to: Akragon

I think the main point is this: The Bible is still a product of man, regardless during which council the books were determined. And the fact that it happened more than 3.5 centuries after the birth of Jesus means something as well.

I'm not trying to derail the thread or create an unnecessary debate, but I do know that when I hear the council (whichever one) discussed, it's usually in the context to point out that the Bible is neither devine nor infallible, due to its creation by man.

ETA: I do find it intriguing, however, that they determined which books would be in the bible after they determined the message that they wanted to tell...almost like they planned their agenda and then handpicked the information that supported it, instead of using what existed to determine the path of the church.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Really not the point of this thread though...

the bible proves itself to be fallible so that shouldn't even be a question... its not even debatable, its a fact

It is most definitely written by man, inspired or not...

Christians are almost always the ones that are guilty of this mistake... they should know their own material

And this just drives me up the bloody wall...

Which is why I put this in the rant section.... before my head pops off!!

a reply to: Akragon
Good luck with this, Akragon. You've tried. I've tried. Others have tried. It's as persistent as those who believe everyone thought the world was flat at one time. BTW. Don't forget the council of Trent.

I've never seen a 1611 KJV bible with 14 extra books

There is a KJV with the extra books in it. Last I checked, you could still buy one.

My understanding of Nicaea is that the biblical text was finalized at that meeting. Much like today's big summits 99% of the work and documentation is done well before the summit by working group meetings. However the summit gets all the 'glory' as being the final agreement.

Without the decision on the nature of Christ however I don't think biblical text could be finalized. Thus I still see Nicaea as an important meeting...among others of course.

Personally it's a distinction without a difference to me...but I'm not doing a thesis on the subject either.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

No... no it wasn't...

Did you read the thread or just post a reply?

a reply to: Akragon

I read and posted my understanding. Sorry it's not the same as yours. Your source from "The Reluctant Messenger" website, whatever and whoever posted that, didn't come anywhere near a credible source for me.

Quote from your source website....

"Question: Who is the Master, is he real and is he alive?
Answer: The Master is based on true experience. Many times in my life I traveled to be with my teacher as he taught the mysteries of God and our special relationship with the Eternal. He is dead now. The website presents the teachings of three men that all say the same thing in three different ways. Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Lakshmanjoo and Herbert. W. Armstrong.
The website reflects all three of these men's teaching. In tone and character, the Master is modeled after Paramahansa Yogananda. The most amazing portions of the website reflect the teachings of Swami Lakshmanjoo. The War of the Angels is consistent with the teachings of Herbert. W. Armstrong."

reluctant-messenger.com...

Ummmmm....the credibility factor I mentioned is pretty low but you're welcome to try and boost it up if you like...

originally posted by: Akragon
Over and over and over again I hear people say "the council of Nicea was where they figured out what was in the bible"

Im pretty much sick and tired of hearing it... so im writing this so I can simply post a link and smile from here on in...

The Council of Laodicea is where they settled the canon of the bible... though it was not the final discussion on the matter


CANON LX.

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Notice revelation was absent?

At the council of Nicaea the agenda involved establishing the date of Easter, and more importantly the Nature of Christ...

This was what is considered The Arian Heresy...

Both sides were Trinitarian...

One side wanted Jesus to be equal to the Father, and the other side led by Arius believed that Jesus was most definitely divine, but he was subordinate to the Father...

In any case we know how that turned out...

but the bottom line here is this...

The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the canon of the bible!!


The agenda of the Council of Nicaea included:
1.The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?

2.The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter

3.The Meletian schism

4.Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons
~Church structures: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
~Dignity of the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy
~Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
~Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
~Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy

Believe it or not people.... Dan Brown is an author of FICTION!!

A good post overall, but once the "nature of Jesus" was decided at the Council of Nicea, i.e. that he was both man and god incarnate, rather than the other two main views, that he was all man or all god, then all other texts, groups, and teachings were considered heresy. That includes all of the more gnostic texts. Hence I must disagree with you, as these become not only expunged from acceptance but were actively eradicated, with the campaigns newly legitimized by the Council?

Does that have some reality? Or no?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Akragon

I think the main point is this: The Bible is still a product of man, regardless during which council the books were determined. And the fact that it happened more than 3.5 centuries after the birth of Jesus means something as well.

I'm not trying to derail the thread or create an unnecessary debate, but I do know that when I hear the council (whichever one) discussed, it's usually in the context to point out that the Bible is neither devine nor infallible, due to its creation by man.

ETA: I do find it intriguing, however, that they determined which books would be in the bible after they determined the message that they wanted to tell...almost like they planned their agenda and then handpicked the information that supported it, instead of using what existed to determine the path of the church.

This!

Exactly, it matters not whether it is the Council of Nicea or another conference.

The truth regardless is that groups or a series of conventions decided which books, teachings, and sects were aligned and acceptable and those which weren't. After that fact the church and government went on a massive campaign to wipe out the gnostics, arians, etc.

a reply to: noeltrotsky
There are many sources on the web, detailing what happened at the council of Nicea. Akragon's source is just one of many. Admittedly, most are Xtian sites, but I don't see any reason to doubt them in this case, since secular scholars are in agreement with them in this instance.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

A good post overall, but once the "nature of Jesus" was decided at the Council of Nicea, i.e. that he was both man and god incarnate, rather than the other two main views, that he was all man or all god, then all other texts, groups, and teachings were considered heresy. That includes all of the more gnostic texts. Hence I must disagree with you, as these become not only expunged from acceptance but were actively eradicated, with the campaigns newly legitimized by the Council?

Agreed. But the OP's topic was the venue at the council of Nicea. And deciding which books would be in the bible wasn't done at that time. At least, according to historical and official sources.

a reply to: Akragon

Thanks...in my life...Ive always wondered about all the stuff left OUT of the Bible as all the things that were supposed to or impied they...were to be in it.

And King James...an earthly king...who decided...as a man...what should or shouldnt be in his version. And yet people, preachers, mimisters...all SWEAR by it. I think thats a bit hypocritical.

*Notice how its titled in every edition: The King James VERSION!

a reply to: noeltrotsky


The master is nothin more then a story to tie the website together... Its called grabbing the attention of the reader... It holds little to no relevance to the credibility of the site

And by the way... You should read that story if you ever have time

Its very interesting... Perhaps even enlightening

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Akragon

Thanks...in my life...Ive always wondered about all the stuff left OUT of the Bible as all the things that were supposed to or impied they...were to be in it.

And King James...an earthly king...who decided...as a man...what should or shouldnt be in his version.
And yet people, preachers, mimisters...all SWEAR by it. I think thats a bit hypocritical.

*Notice how its titled in every edition: The King James VERSION!

He didn't. Those charged with the new translation did. They used the Majority Text, which is one of the most complete set of texts we have.

a reply to: Akragon

Trust me, I get it, and honestly, I appreciate the info that you put out here. I guess I should have mentioned that in my response.

As one who constantly fights urges to correct people who show a massive lack of accuracy in statements, I get it.



ADDED: Also, if you really look at the councils as a whole, maybe the Nicean council didn't directly pick the canon, but they sure did decide the plot of the story, thereby setting the stage where only books conducive to the plot would be included. They may not have produced the movie, but they certainly laid out the storyboard.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: noeltrotsky
The master is nothin more then a story to tie the website together... It holds little to no relevance to the credibility of the site

I guess people will have to read things for themselves and decide...as always.

Question: Are you in any way affiliated to the website you quoted?