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

Scholars know there were manuscripts that contained all the New testament writings except Revelation that had been written 164 CE. They also believe the letters were written in the first century.

Thought I would drop this YT clip on the subject . Chris White
This is the one from Micheal Heiser

a reply to: the2ofusr1
No worky.

ETA: Thanks. I'll check it out...

a reply to: Akragon

I am going to thank you for posting this. As i have been blind to this fact.
Great Thread!

Regards,

I was under the impression that the Council of Nicea did pick the cannon, but not because of something written by Dan Brown. I can't recall where I heard it (it may have been the History Channel, which was loads better back then!) since this was about 15 years ago.

Thanks for this info, I will be looking into it!

a reply to: Akragon

So when DID the Council of Niccaea write the Bible then?

Just kidding! I've been guilty of the assumption as well.

originally posted by: Klassified
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.

Fair point. I see it however as a collective process. Perhaps positively at other councils a short list of canon books was chosen, but it required the final answer as to what was the nature of Jesus to decide what was going to be heresy henceforth and therefore give a negative definition for what is NOT canon. See what I mean? From that point onward, all books and writings that did not align with orthodoxy were expunged or destroyed.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

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?

or you could do your own search and see if you come up with anything contrary to what is presented to the OP or perhaps you might be surprised and find your own impressions are in fact incorrect and that numerous sources state, nearly verbatim, what is presented in the OP. Give it a try, the worst thing that could happen is you might learn something.

a reply to: Akragon

Is that the third, second or third council, you know they chose the book's under Constantine when he made Christianity the state empire as up to that point there were several distinct and very different version's of the Christian faith that had grown out of the first and early second century movement, the chose the book's that make up the ancestor of the modern bible and rejected version's of some of those texts which they believed to be in error or alternative version's that did not seem to fit together, they also rejected several other work's almost all of which are now lost including the book of Enoch which survived in both Qumran and the Ethiopian church whom kept a copy.

Broadly speaking even the none Nicene church's agreed with there choice though not always on the Nicene interpretation of some of those text's.

It is rumoured too though it may be merely conjecture or even hearsay based on spurious scholar's work's whose own agenda may have polluted them that Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena had certain paragraph's and messages related to reincarnation removed (As a sinner who think's he or she can repent in a future life is less likely to do so) as well as introducing the interpretation of certain Apostolic passages to mean rule by Divine right when in fact the Apostles were meaning that We should only obey up to the point it does not conflict with our King Jesus who is alive forever and king forever but not to disobey the earthly PTB except were it does Conflict with the kingdom of which we are truly subject's.

The concept of Rule by divine right is a long standing blasphemy against Christ and the holy kingdom and with the exception of some truly Christian king's such as Kanut who after converting demonstrated that he had no control over the tide to make a point to his subject's that only God does and Edward the Confessor who was a king but lived as a monk here in England praying all night and confessing the sin's of himself and his kingdom as well as several other's around the Christian world most so called king's are likely to go a very long way down indeed and as for any follower's whom place there earthly oath before god well enough said on that.

Actually the Nicene conclaves were more about unifying the church and coordinating the faith under the then state religion but they also did push the Official imperial version of the faith as outlined in the Constantine Bible that our modern bible is a derivative of, since most none Nincene churches agree I think it was not a bad choice and probably done in the spirit of the faith even though it was used later to control the masses though mal interpretation and downright occlusion.

Remember Christianity grew as a persecuted underground religion of peace and brotherhood, tolerance and acceptance most of whose message was passed on verbally by whitnesses in house churches and cave's in a world that wanted to extinguish it's flame as they feared what they could not control, those that lived in the hopelessness of such a society found hope in the religion when they discovered it and perhap's the worst thing that ever did happen was for it to become the state religion and for the very same imperial elite who were the very people that had persecuted it and constructed as well as ran the oppressive system that existed already before it's adoption to become it's hierarchy.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

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?

No I am in no way affiliated with "The reluctant messenger"... but I have been reading that site for many years... and I can honestly say there isn't a link on their main page I haven't read... Some of it is good, some not so much because its based on the site owners own theory... and or personal beliefs

but it is a really nice site to find some ancient writing and or religious material you would not otherwise have found... it makes some connections between religions that you might not have made

and again, the story of "the master" is a very interesting story... I do recommend reading it

In that vid I posted of Micheal Heiser he brings up a book and mentions that it was one of the best for original source material in antiquity . a reply to: Akragon

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I haven't had a chance to watch the videos... I will later tonight when I get home

Thanks for your contribution

a reply to: Akragon

I think the point people are trying to make is that our view of Jesus and the question of "what is Christianity" has been controlled.

Yes, they got the location wrong, but the principle is what's important.

The Holy Roman Empire replaced the Hebrew Yeshua with the Roman Jesus. I have really gotten a lot out of reading the pre-nicen council books as found in the quamran caves. Especially Enoch. Which is quoted a lot in the bible, but it was left out.
Anyway this youtube was very informative. At least for me. Regarding the Nicen Council and the replacement theology they instituted. The Hebrew Yeshua teachings conflict with Pauls teachings. Paul had roman roots, and colored everything from his Roman education. That is why the Holy Roman Empire, concentrated on including Pauls teachings and left the others out. But, really would a Hebrew worship like a Roman Catholic???

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
I think the point people are trying to make is that our view of Jesus and the question of "what is Christianity" has been controlled.
Yes, they got the location wrong, but the principle is what's important.

It's amazing to understand that controlling the message has been done by 'the powers that be' since the beginning of humanity.

a reply to: Akragon
This is not when they canonized the bible but it is when they butchered the interpretation.

I know you don't like Paul, but if they would have got it right you wouldn't disagree with Paul. Paul claims that Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.

These terms are interchangeable in Paul's letters.
Jesus Christ = The Light = The Holy Spirit, but he is not the Father.

If you could break free and accept that when Paul says you must believe in Jesus Christ to find heaven, he is making the exact same claim as Buddha when Buddha says you must follow the Light to find Nirvana.

This is the only way to understand Paul. If you believe that Paul is calling Jesus Christ the eternal light within all men, then you can reconcile his message with Christ's, who himself claimed to be the light.

a reply to: sacgamer25

NO need brother...

I've found everything I need within the gospels... why look else where?

Especially since I know Pauls words as well... and I still have no need of them

Some things he is in line with... others hes not, and the fact remains...

Faith alone is simply not enough... that Is Pauls doctrine...

NOT Christ's... I have no need to reconcile the two...

Just as I have no need to reconcile the OT with the NT...

By the way, it wasn't when they butchered the interpretation either...

We have the documents from the council of Nicaea...

Thus you can't say something happened when it didn't.... that is the point of this thread

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: sacgamer25
By the way, it wasn't when they butchered the interpretation either...
We have the documents from the council of Nicaea...
Thus you can't say something happened when it didn't.... that is the point of this thread

When did they butcher the interpretation then?

The Koran says that ones who butchered the interpretation were the one's who started a false church. Should I believe you or the prophet Mohammad?

Why is it so hard to believe that God could maintain books by putting them in the hands of those who had zeal, who would not let God's words be changed? The truth is simple God did maintain all of his books and all of his prophets teach the same thing.

You may not have a personal need to reconcile all the religious texts, but Each of the texts claims that men will no longer understand their prophet at some time, and one will come that can reconcile all the texts, and that when they are reconciled we will reach the age of Light.

If the only way to world peace is for someone to reconcile the texts, then if you believe in brotherly love and you believe in perfection of the mind then someone has to reconcile them.

I can interpret all the texts without leaving a contradiction and I have given you the keys to reconcile Paul but you refuse.

Again who should I believe, all the prophets, the ones who founded the religions of Light or one who says that some of the prophets were liars. Thus you make the same mistake as the leaders at church and place yourself above them because you refuse to understand them.

Who is greater in the site of God? You or Mosses, You or Mohammad, certainly God himself has elevated these men to the status of Prophet, but you claim they were liars and that their God is not the real God. It is this lack of understanding which has lead to genocide in the past and today.

a reply to: sacgamer25

That's pretty easy actually... Unlike them I have never killed anyone...

In fact I don't kill anything...

I also don't claim to be a prophet even though I've been asked that before... its amusing, and quite the complement honestly...

I also don't ask anyone to believe what I say... Nor do I care if they do...

If you don't like it, don't listen...

And I have no need to be greater then anyone either...

So believe who ever you like... the fact remains, we have documents telling us what happened at Nicaea... So you can't say something happened that didn't...

And I didn't say no one screwed with the interpretation either... im sure there were things added to the bible to push an agenda.... We know for a fact that there are parts of the bible that were added later...

The best idea is to figure out the message behind the book in my humble opinion....

And by the way, there will NEVER be peace on this planet... Its just something that isn't meant to be... I hate saying that but its true

originally posted by: caladonea

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.

Nope.

Re read the OP.

The First Council of Nicea was specifically set up to refute the teachings of Arius (and others from the Alexandrian Church) and Meletius of Lycopolis. They did this by authoring a summation statement of core Christian beliefs called the "Nicene Creed".

They also to set an agreed single date for Easter, for both the Roman and Eastern Churches.

The canon of the Bible (what books were in or out of the list) was not on the agenda, nor were any decisions made regarding it.

By the Second Council of Nicea, 462 years later, the canon had already been set in stone, so again, there was no setting of the canon.