It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

AMEN.

*Note: The dictionary definition for catholic, used in this case, is "diverse, broad-based, unified and all-embracing". It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.


edit on 12/1/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Akragon

... 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.


Well reasoned, however;

Prior to Christianity becoming a state religion, it was actively persecuted. For this reason, there was no concerted effort to centralize and unify the churches. Texts were hand copied, often by those for whom writing was not a profession, and were then passed hand to hand at secret meetings. Despite this persecution (which began almost at the founding of Christianity at Pentecost, with the fatal stoning of Stephen) Christianity spread, to the furthest reaches of the Roman Empire, extremely rapidly. This process also created and distributed many copies of texts, some of which (by comparison) would later be considered as poor copies.

Once the persecution stopped, the churches could compare documents and traditions, determining any deviations or contradictions that had arisen.

Nicea was the first Ecumenical Council (i.e: the first council of "all Christian Churches").

Despite the churches of the time all having different source documents, the core Christian beliefs were ratified with an overwhelming majority and the two dissenters in the voting process chose to accept the majority decision, making the outcome unanimous.

When the canon was decided, it was not only on the basis of compliance with doctrine. The provenance of the documents were also taken into consideration as well as technical and stylistic criteria (i.e: God speaks with authority and accuracy, He doesn't waffle and isn't vague).

So the canon documents pre-existed the canon and were of impeccable standing. Some documents were regarded as inauthentic and were excluded and others were 'on the fence' and were classified as apocryphal, to be retained in perpetuity but not as important as the core canon documents.

The process is simple and clear.

No-one rewrote the canon to "ensure right of rule" because that is NOT supported in the current Bible and also Constantine, who was the most likely to do so, was already supreme dictator of the known world and had no need to do it.

Also, many who profess anti-Pauline sentiment seem to be unable to understand that Paul's writings were ratified by contemporaries (like Luke and John, among many others). Some anti-Pauline adherents quote from books written by John, wrongly attributing them to Paul!

In my observation, all 66 books of the Bible present a unified and non-contradictory view, if you study it deeply (realizing that it does use simile, metphor and allegory to portray its teachings).


edit on 12/1/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I fully understand what you're saying, but it's undeniable that many of the apocrypha negate or deviate from the cannon. Basically, what you said here:


So the canon documents pre-existed the canon and were of impeccable standing. Some documents were regarded as inauthentic and were excluded and others were 'on the fence' and were classified as apocryphal, to be retained in perpetuity but not as important as the core canon documents.


supports my claim that there was a storyboard before the canon was chosen. I'm not saying it's for better or for worse, but there was an obvious, conscious effort to have the canon have a certain theme. But that's obviously what should have been done...who is going to follow a religion/cult (it really was a cult at the time of Constantine's epiphone) that has no central theme or continuity.

My views on the veracity of the supernatural claims of the bible--specifically those attributed to Jesus--are irrelevant, I guess. Maybe they fuel my skepticism about the purity of the intentions of these councils, but I fully grasp everything you just laid out. I just think that there was a conscious effort to include some things while discarding others. It's a man-made book with certain intentions; that's all I'm trying to say.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


In my observation, all 66 books of the Bible present a unified and non-contradictory view


That is simply not true...

this is something that Christianity wants the world to believe, but anyone who has actually studied the bible indepth as you suggest can clearly see the truth of the matter... unless blinded by the bias of Christianity itself...

The only unified view in the bible is that we should treat others as we wish to be treated... and even that stands in contradiction when certain stipulations are present

Aside from that contradiction abounds...


edit on 12-1-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut


In my observation, all 66 books of the Bible present a unified and non-contradictory view


That is simply not true...

this is something that Christianity wants the world to believe, but anyone who has actually studied the bible indepth as you suggest can clearly see the truth of the matter... unless blinded by the bias of Christianity itself...

The only unified view in the bible is that we should treat others as we wish to be treated... and even that stands in contradiction when certain stipulations are present

Aside from that contradiction abounds...



I use the following book as a study aid: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (473 close typed pages)!

In all my years of study, I have found that many apparent discrepancies/contradictions are from misinterpretation of discrete sections of scripture, usually because it was taken out of context. None of these discrepancies seem to call into question core doctrinal belief.

I suppose it depends on how you filter what you read.

I tend to assume that if one section of scripture says something that contradicts another section, then I must have misinterpreted one, or both of those sections. It points the way for deeper study and dissection of meaning.

I also believe that the Holy Spirit is required to guide in the reading of scripture. Without its guidance, we are toddlers paddling at the edges of an ocean of meaning.




edit on 12/1/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Fair enough you are free to have your beliefs and methods

personally, I compare everything I read in scripture (biblical and non biblical) with the gospels...

IF they don't line up... They are not "from God" or anyone who knows him so to speak

but to each their own of course




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


I use the following book as a study aid: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (473 close typed pages)!

In all my years of study, I have found that many apparent discrepancies/contradictions are from misinterpretation of discrete sections of scripture, usually because it was taken out of context. None of these discrepancies seem to call into question core doctrinal belief.


I find it interesting to note that you are actually guilty of one of the criticisms levied by the author of the above noted book as he outlines in his introduction. One the 2nd page of the introduction as the author describes the dearth of serious inquiry of biblical discrepencies he notes that even if the previously written works were readily available, they would all suffer from a similar issue. That being, in the authors own words,


And were they within reach, they would be found altogether behind the scholarship of the age.


Would that not be something to look at yourself when referring to a 140 year old tome as your primary resource? I'm happy to sift through it later to see the specifics and its approaches but I'm also certain that there would be more recent scholarly works with a more complete and more up to date approach based on newer finds. When that book was written the Nag Hammadi scrolls and Dead Sea Scrolls were nearly 75 years in the future to name just a couple of important finds of the past century. Just some food for thought.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut


I use the following book as a study aid: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (473 close typed pages)!

In all my years of study, I have found that many apparent discrepancies/contradictions are from misinterpretation of discrete sections of scripture, usually because it was taken out of context. None of these discrepancies seem to call into question core doctrinal belief.


I find it interesting to note that you are actually guilty of one of the criticisms levied by the author of the above noted book as he outlines in his introduction. One the 2nd page of the introduction as the author describes the dearth of serious inquiry of biblical discrepencies he notes that even if the previously written works were readily available, they would all suffer from a similar issue. That being, in the authors own words,


And were they within reach, they would be found altogether behind the scholarship of the age.


Would that not be something to look at yourself when referring to a 140 year old tome as your primary resource? I'm happy to sift through it later to see the specifics and its approaches but I'm also certain that there would be more recent scholarly works with a more complete and more up to date approach based on newer finds. When that book was written the Nag Hammadi scrolls and Dead Sea Scrolls were nearly 75 years in the future to name just a couple of important finds of the past century. Just some food for thought.


Primary resource? I'm sorry but it isn't my primary resource (not even close), so the premise for your post is flawed.

The 'Alleged Discrepancies' text itself does not seek to resolve those discrepancies by reference to archaeology or science, but instead, the author sought resolution from the scriptures themselves. This makes the 140 year old commentary fairly resilient to the dynamics of scientific discovery.

As for Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls; far more than raising new issues, they actually ratified the accuracy of Septuagint texts.

edit on 14/1/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   
my favorite "discrepancy" is the whole eve scenario. here's paul telling people in one of his letters (to timothy, i think), that he doesn't allow women to speak in church because of eve. eve was fooled he said, but adam knew what he was doing and did it anyway. if you look at it for what it's actually saying, the thought process goes thusly:

the person who was fooled by the supposedly trickiest guy in the universe, many times smarter than her or adam, was innocent of actually willfully commiting a crime. et. al, she was fooled. this makes her unreliable, according to paul. the thought process there being that she was gullible and therefore stupid and not reliable. yet we're talking the smartest, most convincing angel, god had ever made, had narrowed in on her for the express purpose of fooling her and he did. this means she shouldn't be allowed to talk and neither should any of her ancestors of the same gender. whereas adam, who supposedly knew the scoop and willfully commited the crime anyway, is more reliable.

you just can't make this stuff up.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
my favorite "discrepancy" is the whole eve scenario. here's paul telling people in one of his letters (to timothy, i think), that he doesn't allow women to speak in church because of eve. eve was fooled he said, but adam knew what he was doing and did it anyway. if you look at it for what it's actually saying, the thought process goes thusly:

the person who was fooled by the supposedly trickiest guy in the universe, many times smarter than her or adam, was innocent of actually willfully commiting a crime. et. al, she was fooled. this makes her unreliable, according to paul. the thought process there being that she was gullible and therefore stupid and not reliable. yet we're talking the smartest, most convincing angel, god had ever made, had narrowed in on her for the express purpose of fooling her and he did. this means she shouldn't be allowed to talk and neither should any of her ancestors of the same gender. whereas adam, who supposedly knew the scoop and willfully commited the crime anyway, is more reliable.

you just can't make this stuff up.


Paul's was addressing particular issues that were happening at the time in the church at Corinth. He specifically sent Timothy there to sort out the problems (1 Corinthians 4:17). Timothy along with his letter from Paul would also have been carrying the letter to the Church (1 Corinthians) that gave them the specifics of what Timothy was to sort out.

The first issue was an acceptance of sexual immorality. There was a church member who was having sex with his own mother (1 Corinthians 5:1), the church also tolerated gay and cross dressing members (1 Cor 6:9) and there were many who were having sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7). This attitude of sexual immorality was further inflamed by women using the church as a platform for 'picking up guys'.

Another issue was that communion was becoming a drunken feast (1 Corinthians 11:21-22) and church services were becoming unruly, with people calling out what they thought was prophecy or 'speaking in tongues' (1 Cor 12).

Many of the issues were most probably related to the attitudes of the general public because Corinth was a main center for the worship of Athena and everyone there had long accepted the idea of temple prostitutes/priestesses. In fact, if you type 'corinth temple' into Google, the top Wikipedia article is "Sacred Prostitution".

It was in this climate that Paul gave those apparently misogynistic dictates.

In truth, Paul was not misogynistic, acknowledging that a woman, Phoebe, was his patroness (Romans 16:1-2).

edit on 16/1/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join