Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible

If it wasnt the council as you say, Then who did put together the Bible?

The canon of the NT grew over time -
starting from Marcion in the 2nd C.
finishing in late 4th C.

Here is a handy site to read more :
ntcanon.org...

The claim that the CoN chose the canon is the single most common false claim about the NT you can find.

It is repeated endlessly.
It gets repeated on this site like every week or more.
But it's wrong.
And some people never learn :-)


K.

The early Church determined what books were to be included or excluded from the new testament. They based there decisions on three criteria.

1) The book must have apostolic authority. They must have been written by either the apostles themselves or by associates of the apostles who were eyewitnesses.

2) was the rule of faith.the document had to be congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church reconized as normal.

3) The document had to be continuously accepted and used by the Church at large.

Gday,

Originally posted by oliveoil
1) The book must have apostolic authority. They must have been written by either the apostles themselves or by associates of the apostles who were eyewitnesses.

Unfortunately,
there are no eye-witneses at all.

Not one book in the NT is by an eye-witness.

We don't even have a single authentic CLAIM to have met a historical Jesus.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Unfortunately,
there are no eye-witneses at all.

Not one book in the NT is by an eye-witness.

We don't even have a single authentic CLAIM to have met a historical Jesus.

What?
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. How is that for authenticity?
What about all the Church fathers?Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias all of who cite the NT therefore authenticating it
Not to mention Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.

reply to post by Iasion


So the proof you have of this is from a Christian Website...RRRRRRRIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for your biased evidence.

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by Kapyong

Unfortunately,
there are no eye-witneses at all.
Not one book in the NT is by an eye-witness.
We don't even have a single authentic CLAIM to have met a historical Jesus.

What?
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. How is that for authenticity?

I said :
"We don't even have a single authentic CLAIM to have met a historical Jesus."

Paul did not claim to have met a historical Jesus.
Paul merely had a VISION of Christ.

Originally posted by oliveoil
What about all the Church fathers?Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias all of who cite the NT therefore authenticating it

None of them claimed to have met a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Not to mention Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.

Neither of them claimed to have met a historical Jesus.


Please READ my comments before answering next time :-)


It's like I said :
We don't even have a single authentic CLAIM to have met a historical Jesus.


K.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Iasion

 

So the proof you have of this is from a Christian Website...RRRRRRRIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for your biased evidence.

WTF?
Are you serious?

The official record of the church shows for the CoN shows they did NOT discuss the books of the Bible at all. The various accounts from people AT THE MEETING says the same.

Are you trying to claim the church DID so, then CHANGED the records?


What on earth IS your claim, exactly?


K.

There is a lot of great information and opinion here - thank you everyone for contributing. I don't think that I'll be able to add anything as scholarly as that which has been presented. But I do have a couple of questions.

Can we not consider the intent of what they were doing at Nicea? True enough, Constantine may have told them to get their act together - and so they produced the creed. Sooner or later, by common use and convention other books of the NT became more the norm that others - and people just lost interest or were not assertive enough to demand their books be kept on the shelf, so to speak. Beyond that though, have we, and I guess I mean people of the last 1400 years or so - placed a greater emphasis on what they (the bishops and eventual collectors of the letters and gospels forming the canon) were doing than the bishops did? Do we think that they could have envisioned their efforts being the basis of organized Christianity has become? With all do respect, I suspect they had no idea of what influence they would be setting in motion.

And for all of the folks who claim there is no evidence of a man named Jesus - and I grant that there is not the same evidence that we have for Roman Emperors etc... - and I have asked this on other threads and received no answer - what do you make of what was built up around as a Jesus story? Legend or myth? If no Jesus existed at all - why not just make more stories about someone like John the Baptist? Why were the stories told at all? I'm not saying they didn't get a little longer in the retelling or that some of the claims weren't borrowed from other quasi-historical figures --- but how did they get started then?

going gently,

G.

reply to post by Kapyong


What i am trying to say is that all we have out here is the bible. We can revue older versions, but in regards to speculations of origin - at most we engage mostly in 'monkey squabble'.
The real truth of the church would no doubt, lay within the records in Vatican City; where I m sure that you or anyone else that indulges within ATS, would have no access.......but, as you were!

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
What i am trying to say is that all we have out here is the bible.

Pardon?
We have many more documents than the Bible.

On the subject of the CoN, we have the actual canons of the meeting - the "minutes" so to speak.

We also have various accounts of the meeting, some even by persons who were THERE.

So,
we have much more than the Bible to consider.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
We can revue older versions, but in regards to speculations of origin - at most we engage mostly in 'monkey squabble'.

Your posts may be 'monkey squabble' because you didn't bother to check the facts, unlike me.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
The real truth of the church would no doubt, lay within the records in Vatican City;

Pardon?
You said church documents were biased!
Now you say they contain the truth?


K.

reply to post by Kapyong


Ohh; get over yourself!
Yes the the creed of Nicea, the Nicean Creed, the gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic gospels, the dead sea scrolls, the writings of Josephus, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, the book of Enoch; and the countless scrolls that sit in the hands of private dealers in ancient antiquities and Synagogue Geniza's (that you and no-one else will ever read to be able to have a complete and accurate picture).
Unless you have access to all information-you cant know everything

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Ohh; get over yourself!
Yes the the creed of Nicea, the Nicean Creed, the gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic gospels, the dead sea scrolls, the writings of Josephus, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, the book of Enoch;

Yes, what?

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
and the countless scrolls that sit in the hands of private dealers in ancient antiquities and Synagogue Geniza's (that you and no-one else will ever read to be able to have a complete and accurate picture).

Yes, there is always information not available.
That's true in any field.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Unless you have access to all information-you cant know everything

Is that your point, finally?

I didn't say I knew everything.
No-one ever does.

I merely researched the issue of the CoN and the canon of the NT.
I read the available documents myself, unlike 99.9% of posters here, unlike you.

You dropped in with bizarre nonsense, obviously haven't studied any of it, and you still haven't made any actual point about the subject at hand, on which you seem to know nothing.


K.

reply to post by Kapyong

Paul did not claim to have met a historical Jesus.
Paul merely had a VISION of Christ.

Wow, That must have been some vision.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Wow, That must have been some vision.

Hmm,
you didn't know Paul never met Jesus?
But only had a vision of him ?

Really?


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by oliveoil
Wow, That must have been some vision.

Hmm,
you didn't know Paul never met Jesus?
But only had a vision of him ?

Really?


K.

Yes, I've heard this a million times.
Ok, Please tell me your version why Paul never met Jesus.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Ok, Please tell me your version why Paul never met Jesus.

Pardon?
MY version?

What on earth are you on about?
It's the BIBLE's version I am talking about.

Have you ever READ any of the NT?
Because according to the NT, Paul never met Jesus.

Are you really claiming that he did?
Please make it clear what your claim is.


K.

Groupies--

Not only did Saul of Tarsus (aka 'Paul' his Roman Citizen name, born in the capital of Cilicia in present day Turkey, no where near Israel) NOT meet 'Iesous' in the flesh, (but only in 'Dreams and Visions' sort of like my cook), but he despised and fought bitterly with the actual disciples of 'Iesous' that DID know him 'in the flesh' especally clear if you read the vitriol in Galatians chapter 2 where this Saul person referrred to:

1.Shimeon bar Yonah ha Kephah (=Simon Peter)
2. and Yochanon bar Zavdai, one of the Benei Regesh (=John the son of Zebedee, one of the Sons of Thunder)

as 'those so-called Pillars of the Church as if he were insanely jealous of their rank in the Nazorean Messianic synagogues in Antioch and Jerusalem.

The Nazorean Messianic Jewish groups he himself opposed both politically and theologically (especially in the Nazorean insistence upon mandatory circumcison and the keeping of kashrut dietary laws: these Nazorean communities later called themselves the Ebionim, i.e. the poor ones, which later church fathers classified the Nazorean Ebionites as 'heretics', despite their 'native' Palestinian Jewish origin---and Saul of Tarsus was certainly not 'native' by any stretch....)

The division between the Greek Speaking Greek Loving Torah Hating Pauline churches in the Greek speaking Diaspora (who were less affected by the effects of the Failed Jewish War against Rome in AD 66-72) and the home-grown Torah Abiding, Circumcising, Kashrut eating, Nazorean Palestinian Aramaic speaking 'Salvation by Works' (read the Epistle of Yakkkov bar Yosef, aka 'James' the brother of Iesous) 'original' followers of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir was final after the War when the Nazoreans (and most of the Ebionim) were wiped out by Rome or later died out from lack of sheer numbers and political support...

Whereas the Freer AntiLaw Greek Speaking ('Salvation by Faith') Pauline churches eventually won out to become the Christian Church--most of today's Christians are PAULINE Christians, and not torah abiding Nazorean 'Jesus-salvation by works' Palestinian-theology-based Christians--

A glimpse of what later became the New Testament will show the dominance (in terms of actual number of books) of anti-Law proGreek, pro-salvation by faith Pauline stances (exceptions include the 1st Gospel ('of Matthew') and the Epistle of James and Jude and the Apocalypse of Yohanon which were Nazorean in origin...

Few Christians to-day even realise that there ever was such a rift between the Paulinists (run by Greek speaking god-fearers appointed and approved of orignally by Paul) and the 'Nazorean Judaiesers' (run by the blood family of 'Iesous')

It is even said that when the great-grandsons (twin boys) of Yehudah bar Yosef ha Thomah, the Galielan (Iesous' 'twin' brother Judas/Theudas Thomas) presented themselves as Dual Kings of Yisro'el in Rome around the year 120AD in order to 'take over the reigns of the Church at Rome' and re-instate Kashrut dietary laws of the Jews and circumcision to the Christian Church, they were basically turned away at the door...so far removed were the later Pauline Christian churches they did not even want to listen to the blood relatives of their purported founder Iesous !

]reply to post by Sigismundus


Hi Sig,

Thats very interesting to say the least. I've never really understood the theory behind "Paulinists" and the 'Nazorean Judaiesers".

According to what you are saying it sounds like Saul's "Vision" and conversion ,could have been a big ploy to position himself high within the ranks.
(that evil wicked man)

Or, Just...Just Maybe it just could have been true that Paul's "vision" of Iesous divinely inspired him to preach in his name.

P.S. Tell your cook to lay off the sauce.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by oliveoil]

[edit on 20-11-2009 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil
Or, Just...Just Maybe it just could have been true that Paul's "vision" of Iesous divinely inspired him to preach in his name.

Yes,
that's essentially what Paul says - that all he knows about Iesous comes from revelation, and scripture.


K.