Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible

Originally posted by ScienceDada
His post was distorting the truth, by saying that fear was reverential awe. The vast majority of the time, it means "fear" in the KJV. Most other translations do not translate "eulabeia" as fear, but as "awe." Perhaps he should have made that clear.

LOL. Yes, that word's main definition was supposed to be about 'awe' [read: reverence, respect, etc.]. Not fear. Phebeo is the word for actual fear [read: terror, fright, etc.].

If you want to talk Hebrew, that is a different matter. Wasn't he referring to the teachings of Jesus, i.e. a topic regarding the New Testament?

I just love to be thorough.

No, please by all means correct me. I challenge you to find a single error in what I wrote. If you can demonstrate it, I will admit my error gladly. Please do!

Sure. My apologies for not doing it before. I was trying to prevent the 'agenda pushing' accusation you made towards another member. lol Be back in the morning.

[edit on 9/24/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by SR
So apart from mere apologists who never met the man once again there are no legitamite records of the king of jews existing??

No. And Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

According to your standards, then there are no historical figures. No Julius Ceasar, no Tsar Peter of Russia, no George Washington, no Pharoah Ramses II... no anybody. In fact, we are all surrounded by aliens who look like humans or are in a simulation like in The Matrix. Right?

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most attested facts in history. If you don't want to believe the written accounts of His life, then don't believe them. But to formulate elaborate conspiracy theories accusing Christians of syncretism is a waste of time. After all, who cares (unless it is just to get a response to entertain yourself)?

But just as there are Holocaust deniers, there are people who can believe anything. [sigh]

Gday,

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most attested facts in history.

No it isn't.
There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Just later stories from believers.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
If you don't want to believe the written accounts of His life, then don't believe them.

Do YOU believe the written accounts of the life of Hercules ?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But to formulate elaborate conspiracy theories ...

Pardon?
What "elaborate conspiracy theories" ?


Kapyong

reply to post by ScienceDada


you make some valid points, some of the reference material i was quoting from was a bit overzealous in the wording, I have already gone through one "revised" version of this video, working on the second.

I do think the issue is more with the wording than the premise as I am sure you would agree.

as my initial reason was to debunk the canon/nicaea thing i kinda rushed the follow through.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by Amenti]

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most attested facts in history.

No it isn't.
There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Most historians throughout history are reporting stories. That is what history is most of the time.

For example, there is no "contemporary historical" evidence for most of Egyptian history. The Egyptians often practiced revisionist history as a way to be vindictive against people politically. Thus to erase their memory from historical archives was to somehow to vicariously destroy a person, by erasing their memory from existence.

History is always biased in one form or another. But very little of it is "contemporary." But to fill this criterion, firsthand accounts are quite acceptable for other figures, even those who were believers (as with Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharoahs, who were self-proclaimed gods).

Your premise is really that the evidence about Jesus of Nazareth from the writings of his contemporaries is not reliable has big problems. These contemporaries included Matthew the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, James the Brother of Jesus, and Jude. But that does not mean that the "contemporary" evidence doesn't exist, only that you don't deem it reliable. The same can be said for most of human history.

The idea of "later stories" is a double-standard, especially since memoirs, biographies, and compiled histories are also later stories, and often compiled based on other people's later stories. Most of human history is from "later stories."

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But to formulate elaborate conspiracy theories ...

Pardon?
What "elaborate conspiracy theories" ?

That there were 2 individuals who were combined to produce the stories of Jesus, and this was done on purpose by several individuals. This is an example of such an elaborate conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Amenti
you make some valid points, some of the reference material i was quoting from was a bit overzealous in the wording...

Feel free to U2U me if you would like another set of eyes.

I think these sorts of viral videos are worthwhile, and I would hate for someone to dismiss your arguments because they pick it apart as I did. Especially given that your base premises are indeed correct.

Gday,

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Most historians throughout history are reporting stories. That is what history is most of the time.

The issue here is historical attestation of Jesus.
Which is very scanty - nothing contemporary, nothing solid.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
For example, there is no "contemporary historical" evidence for most of Egyptian history.

Not sure if that is true,
but the issue I am discussing here is historical attestation to Jesus.
Of which there is very little, none contemporary.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Egyptians often practiced revisionist history as a way to be vindictive against people politically. Thus to erase their memory from historical archives was to somehow to vicariously destroy a person, by erasing their memory from existence.

But,
what does ancient Egyptian changes to their archives have to do with historical attestation to Jesus ?

Are you suggesting the Egyptians erased Jesus from history ?
Are you suggesting a conspiracy to erase Jesus from history ?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But very little of it is "contemporary."

This is just not true.
We have a great deal of contemporary evidence for many people in history.

From Augustus Caesar we have :
* contemporary writings from him
* contemporary writings from others who knew him
* contemporary carvings of his actions
* conteamporary coins showing his likeness
* contemporary archeological evidence of his actions

There are a vast number of such people for whom we have a large body of contemporary evidence of many kinds.

For Jesus we have nothing like that.
Nothing contemporary.

Jesus is NOT well attested at all.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But to fill this criterion, firsthand accounts are quite acceptable for other figures, even those who were believers (as with Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharoahs, who were self-proclaimed gods).

We have a great deal of contemporary and/or archeological evidence for Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs.

We have nothing like that for Jesus.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Your premise is really that the evidence about Jesus of Nazareth from the writings of his contemporaries is not reliable has big problems. These contemporaries included Matthew the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, James the Brother of Jesus, and Jude.

These books were NOT by contemporaries who met Jesus. Scholars agree - not one of the NT books was written by anyone who met a Jesus.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But that does not mean that the "contemporary" evidence doesn't exist, only that you don't deem it reliable. The same can be said for most of human history.

Scholars agree the NT books were written much later by people who never met any Jesus.

Only faithful believers believe otherwise.



Kapyong





[edit on 25-9-2008 by Kapyong]

Gday folks,

A quick bump for those folks recently pushing this false claim.
Please check the facts guys.

This urban legend is one of the most common on the 'net.
Learn to check things before making wild claims.


K.

But as you can see from the previous post on the history of the Bible the books were chosen over time by use and acceptance. Just the statement that Arius' writings were burned as heretical should bring to question in an educated free thinking mind as to what other manuscripts were burned over the centuries to come to our current book. My Catholic priest showed me a bible from before 1950 that included 4 other books not in my Good News Bible.

Perhaps in the CoN mind there was no discussion over what books should be in the Bible but that does not preclude the idea that there were other manuscripts written and rejected over the years. What about the other apostles? The other people who knew and followed Jesus? The priests other than Paul. Why didn't James or John write letters to more people?

I believe it is infantile to believe the Bible is a completed work rather than a collection of accepted stories that fit the"mold" for early Christians.

A quick bump for this ol' chesnut,
as it's come up again ...


K.

The urban legend that never dies...

Originally posted by Illmatic67
You are a plain fool if you don't believe the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the organization of the Bible, even a little bit.

No you are not...

Have you ever read the transcripts? They are there to read ya know?


It had mainly to do with getting Christianity accepted by the Romans in a time when they were Killing Christians.... I forget the name of the bishop at the time, but as for the Synoptic Gospels, they were chosen because they held the major tenants without being too anti-authoritarian....

The thing that is difficult for me to accept now after years of study of the Bible is how man decided what is the "word of God"! I don't care if it was Constantine or a bunch of so called church fathers, if this collection is the perfect word of god then why the voting and difficulty in a united acceptance of the various books?

One would think if god wanted to give us a book that is perfect like the Christians claim it is then why the need for man to decide what should or should not be in there? Rather it is simply a collection of letters, that is right folks letters from Paul to the churches, not the word of God! The gospels are accounts of the life of Jesus, not the word of God!

The church took the focus off the important message that Jesus came to share with us, and put the focus instead upon his death. Original Sin is a fallacy and without the fear of being hell bound for simply being born in a body of flesh, the church would loose all power. Wake up people, it is a valuable book with many wonderful illustrations that can be used for teaching, but to make it an inspired thing is a bit over the top.

Gday,

Originally posted by redhead57
if this collection is the perfect word of god then why the voting and difficulty in a united acceptance of the various books?

The answer is obvious -

It's NOT the perfect word of god.

It's just a varied and contradictory collection of ancient religious legends.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings all,

Several posters here have made the claim that the Council of Nicea decided the books of the Bible.

e.g.
toolmaker wrote: "Some books were discarded (Thomas, Enoch etc) because they did not fit into what religious leaders wanted, decided at the council of Nicea in 326 AD."

But,
it is NOT TRUE.

The Council of Nicea argued about Arius and the date of Easter mainly.

The Council did NOT make any pronouncements on the books of the bible.

This can easily be proved because we still have extant :
* the documents produced at the council detailing their decisions (creed, canons, letter)
* several accounts of the Council, some from contemporary writers.

You can check these documents here -
www.newadvent.org...

You can read a good article about it here -
www.tertullian.org...

Which all shows conclusively that the council made no such choice of the books of the bible.


I am rather surprised that this well known fallacy is still being repeated here.


Iasion


[edit on 5-4-2005 by John bull 1]

whoa that was news to me as well. thanks for the links...when I have time i'll be going thru them!

Bump for Saint4God - again.

Mate - are you ever going to learn the facts about Nicea ?


K.

Didn't read the thread completely so forgive me if this has already been said.
Do you suppose that if they remove a book from the bible they then go "let's make an official record that we excluded this"? Wouldn't that be kind counter productive?

Gday,

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Didn't read the thread completely so forgive me if this has already been said.
Do you suppose that if they remove a book from the bible they then go "let's make an official record that we excluded this"? Wouldn't that be kind counter productive?

Pardon?
How on earth could a book be removed WITHOUT people knowing?

When books WERE removed, we have direct evidence - such as Hermas which is found in the early MSS, and missing from later ones; and we have specific arguments WHY it was removed.

If the council DID chose the books of the Bible, they would have to TELL people in an official letter, they would have to collect the old copies and make new ones.

How on earth do you think that could happen without leaving ANY evidence?
How?

How do you think the CoN told people of their decisions?
They released a formal document of rules.
And it has NOTHING about the canon in it.

You seem to think they performed TWO completely succesful cover-ups :
1. removing the books from the bible
2. removing evidence that it happened.

All across the empire, without leaving ANY evidence!
Impossible.
Ridiculous.



K.

bump for Saint4God