Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible

the catholic bishops at Nicea in 325 AD(to correct the one who said 323) destryed christianity. they made a set of beliefs that yes were agreed on but we fail to understand that a christian is someone who follows the teachings of christ not someone who believes the Nicean creed. so what happened was they made a belief sysytem that had to be followed. anyon who went against the cred was considered a heretic. they have made it impossible for anyone to read the gnostic gospels without being called an outcast. they have made 90% of todays christians ignorant of ther true history and i can prove that by saying this. How can the Bible be the word of God when it was, whether they took out one book or seventeen, voted on and created by man?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
How can the Bible be the word of God when it was, whether they took out one book or seventeen, voted on and created by man?

What vote?

There was no vote on the books of the bible.


Kapyong

i just did a 7 min movie about this



[edit on 23-9-2008 by Amenti]

So by that admission that the records say it didn't happen does that mean Jesus didn't exist seeing there are no Roman documents noting his existence???

reply to post by SR


are you sure about that?

i have found that position is not held by the top debating atheists.

the reason is that it is a very new position that counts on sheer ignorance of the non-biblical sources



[edit on 23-9-2008 by Amenti]

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

Nice video but have you checked the timelines of the respective sources qouted in it?? Bar Josephus which it's self is highly disputed none of them are primary sources at all.

Is it infact the case that there are two different Jesus persona's the reality and the invented legend???

reply to post by Amenti


This is so funny- someone just made a thread using your video on BTS this morning:

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

I was watching it and immediately recognized your voice. Then looked at your YT channel and sure enough it was you.

The Council of Nicea was there for one reason alone, to decide who the Hero was to be, and im sure if you look close enough there where at least 4 people who where considered for the role of Christ.

But nobody will ever know for certain, because for every answer, there are at least two questions uncovered somewhere else, Christianity has been twisted and hidden, pulled and pushed, where does truth start and deception end?

Also if i remember right, was not the mother of Constantine responsible for all Cristian motives relating to her son? was it not Constantine who ordered the massacre of the first Christian Legion in Germany? the Legion where the spear of destiny originated?

Don't flame me if im wrong on a point or two.

But i can assure you, that most if not all Christian religious days, are based solely on Pagan rituals, the reasoning behind them has been again pulled and twisted to what is known today, and yes that includes Sun worship.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Amenti

 

This is so funny- someone just made a thread using your video on BTS this morning:

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

I was watching it and immediately recognized your voice. Then looked at your YT channel and sure enough it was you.

Ashley,
good to hear from you. as you can see from the posting of the Jesus' existence video here i get a lot of use out of your research lol.

I saw that post on bts too, I was happy to see it.

let me know if I can help you with promotion of any projects you have in the works i will be happy to help in any way i can.

Chris

Originally posted by Amenti
i just did a 7 min movie about this

This is full of factual errors and omissions. For example:

You assert that the bishops at Nicea derived their authority from "local Bible believing congregations" but this is a misrepresentation, because there was no "Bible" in the way that your viewers understand it. The canon was not settled.

The assertion that each canonical book is cited as "authoritative" within one generation of the Apostles is not true. They are quotations which are usually is a positive sense included in Epistles. But these same Church Fathers also "quoted" from many others books and epistles as well. This is a lie by omission.

The Muratorian Canon does not list all the books of the NT canon. It omitted: Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, III John
It also contained the Apocalypse of Peter

I am sure I could find more, but these just jumped out at me while watching.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
This is full of factual errors and omissions. For example:

You assert that the bishops at Nicea derived their authority from "local Bible believing congregations" but this is a misrepresentation, because there was no "Bible" in the way that your viewers understand it. The canon was not settled.

Seriously?
someone with a name like "Science Dada" pointing out such a semantic issue. how about "scripture believing congregations"

Surely your not suggesting Nicaea decided the canon?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The assertion that each canonical book is cited as "authoritative" within one generation of the Apostles is not true. They are quotations which are usually is a positive sense included in Epistles. But these same Church Fathers also "quoted" from many others books and epistles as well. This is a lie by omission.

when you quote a roman edict vs reading scripture to teach your congregation Its painfully obvious.
No one is suggesting every single thing they quoted was "authoritative"
as I said most of these cases are obvious.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Muratorian Canon does not list all the books of the NT canon. It omitted: Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, III John
It also contained the Apocalypse of Peter

I am aware of this, and what I said is accurate.





[edit on 24-9-2008 by Amenti]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Amenti]

reply to post by Amenti

So that you don't feel like I have an agenda toward the Gnostic Gospels... these are false writings. What you say about the Gnostic Gospels is true. For example, toward the Gospel of Thomas, the Fathers either do not mention it, or are unanimously against it.
Gospels of Thomas, of Phillip, of Mary, and of Truth. Same is true of the Gospels "of the Twelve", of Basilides, and of Matthias.

Also, you rightly say that the canon of the scripture was not even on the agenda at the Council of Nicea. This is true.

This being stated clearly, much of your argument is false, being either a deceit by omission or outright lies. To be frank, the ends do not justify the means. Just because you have an agenda to prove that the New Testament canon was decided pre-Nicea does not make it so.

You said "we can be quite certain what they considered to be scripture"
This is not so. There were ambiguities as late as the end of the fourth century. Specifically with books like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, I Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of the Hebrews, and some others
You mention Irenaeus as one of your examples, but you don't mention that he "quotes" from I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas.

You said "The Muratorian Canon... basically lists the whole New Testament canon"
But it omits 5 books and includes a non-canonical one. This is not "basically" the same, but rather it is about one fifth of the canon that was unclear. That is a significant amount.

You said "the four-fold Gospel was rock solid"
The four-fold Gospel was not rock solid. Multiple writers considered Gospel to the Hebrews to be inspired. However, there is no question that the Gnostic Gospels were unanimously attested to as false, if they were mentioned or "quoted" at all.

You say "the sheer number of quotations... of these canonical New Testament writings clearly shows that the Early Church decided long before the Council of Nicea which books they considered to be inspired"
This is not true. There was ambiguity for at least 50 years after Nicea. Eusebius, who you use earlier in the presentation, documents these ambiguities. And I quote from Eusebius, not only because you use him in your argument, but also because he writes this right at the time of the Council of Nicea.

History of the Church, Book 3, Ch. 3 (emphasis mine):

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.

The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.

But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.

Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.

This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

Even if Eusebius is used as a proof, doubt is clearly cast on several books (James, Jude, II Peter, II John, III John) and especially The Apocalypse of John (i.e., Revelation), of which he reports that the Church was evenly divided over.

This illustrates that what you claim is not true. The canon was not clearly nor "basically" defined. Several of the writings that are included in the New Testament canon were disputed.

Your video contains false information. So, what you said is not accurate.

Originally posted by Amenti

Originally posted by ScienceDada
This is full of factual errors and omissions. For example:

You assert that the bishops at Nicea derived their authority from "local Bible believing congregations" but this is a misrepresentation, because there was no "Bible" in the way that your viewers understand it. The canon was not settled.

Seriously?
someone with a name like "Science Dada" pointing out such a semantic issue. how about "scripture believing congregations"

Saying "bible believing" or "scripture believing" is the same, and even true if you defined your terms... but you do not define your terms. If "bible" or "scripture" in this statement does is not synonymous with the 27 books in the New Testament canon exclusively, then the statement is true.

The "bible" that was believed by the Early Christians was often a differnt corpus of writings than the current New Testament canon (whether omitting canonized books or including non-canonical ones). If you were to make this clear, then it would be true. But you lie by omission, because "Bible" is a loaded term in this context. Many of the Dan Brown advocates are arguing that The Gospel of Thomas was actually in "The Bible" so without defining your terms, then your statement equally means the Early Christians believed the Gospel of Thomas. This is also demonstrably false.

And yes, I am arguing over semantics, because the implications of what you claimed is demonstrably false. I covered this in my previous posting.

Originally posted by Amenti

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The assertion that each canonical book is cited as "authoritative" within one generation of the Apostles is not true. They are quotations which are usually is a positive sense included in Epistles. But these same Church Fathers also "quoted" from many others books and epistles as well. This is a lie by omission.

when you quote a roman edict vs reading scripture to teach your congregation Its painfully obvious.
No one is suggesting every single thing they quoted was "authoritative"
as I said most of these cases are obvious.

This is a false dichotomy (i.e., not the only two options).

Great thread, informative for those of us who are only aware of parts of this.

Just one question;

Originally posted by azzllin
......... and im sure if you look close enough there where at least 4 people who where considered for the role of Christ.

not wanting to derail but could you please elaborate?





[edit on 24/9/08 by Freeborn]

reply to post by Iasion


" Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible "

I don't think it really matters! Jesus referred to the scribes and pharisees as vipers and hippocrites! The religious offices were corrupt from the very beginning. They were full of pompous asses, who were just focused on how cool they were and the power they got and how they could control people.


But don't get me wrong, The Bible is a great book, but you have to learn it, from a teacher who really understands it. The 1611 King James version on the inside cover advised the reader to dig for a deeper understanding, that they did the best they could putting it together, but that an in depth look into the meanings of the words would reveal a much deeper understanding of The Word.

I'll just give one example of the translation of "one was to fear the Lord"...if one looks deeper into the meaning, one will discover, that the word is REVERE as opposed to FEAR! which changes the meaning entirely!!!!! But it is a good example, because it is FEAR that is being sold by LIARS! and MANIPULATORS who are not teaching the true meaning of what was written. If you can find a REAL PASTOR who actually FEEDS his flock, the Word as it should be taught, then you'll know a wolf in sheeps clothing when you see/hear one, because they are sputterers of The Word, giving only milk and NO MEAT, no true understanding!!! And you'll walk away from them, and they are many in number.



[edit on 24-9-2008 by toasted]

Originally posted by toasted
I'll just give one example of the translation of "one was to fear the Lord"...if one looks deeper into the meaning, one will discover, that the word is REVERE as opposed to FEAR! which changes the meaning entirely!!!!!

What? This is garbage.

The word "fear" is from the Greek φόβος (phobos), where we get the word "phobia." It does mean fear. You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
What? This is garbage.

The word "fear" is from the Greek φόβος (phobos), where we get the word "phobia." It does mean fear. You don't know what you are talking about.

Actually, Toasted is somewhat right.

Old Testament Hebrew:

bible.crosswalk.com...

New Testament Greek (Godly Fear/Reverence):

bible.crosswalk.com...

As opposed to, what you say, Phobeo:

bible.crosswalk.com...

An example of 'fear' being a poor translation of 'respect' is when we are told to always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in us with meekness and fear [read: respect].

Hope that helps. In some cases you'd be right, though, I'm sure. Somewhere.

Edit to add: Your post HERE was also full of errors. No offense- I just hope you look into it eventually. I see you accused someone else of 'agenda pushing' so I'll just say do your own research and come to your own conclusion and I will withhold my arguments or rebuttals. It's always better when we look into the facts for ourselves instead of relying on the testimony of a cyber spectre anyways. Take care.

[edit on 9/24/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Actually, Toasted is somewhat right.

Toasted makes his claim based on 2 verses from Hebrews?
Heb 5:7; 12:28

Versus this list:
Matt. 1:20; 8:26; 10:26, 28, 31; 14:5, 26; 21:26, 46; 27:54; 28:4f, 8; Mk. 4:40f; 5:33; 6:20; 11:18, 32; 12:12; Lk. 1:12f, 30, 50, 65, 74; 2:10; 5:10, 26; 7:16; 8:37, 50; 9:34, 45; 12:5, 7, 32; 18:2, 4; 19:21; 20:19; 21:11, 26; 22:2; 23:40; Jn. 7:13; 9:22; 12:15; 19:38; 20:19; Acts 2:43; 5:5, 11, 26; 9:31; 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26; 16:38; 19:17; 23:10; 27:17, 24, 29; Rom. 3:18; 8:15; 11:20; 13:7; 1 Co. 2:3; 16:10; 2 Co. 7:1, 5, 11, 15; 11:3; 12:20; Gal. 2:12; Eph. 5:21; 6:5; Phil. 1:14; 2:12; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 1:7; Heb. 2:15; 4:1; 5:7; 10:27, 31; 11:7, 27; 12:21, 28; 13:6; 1 Pet. 1:17; 2:17f; 3:2, 15; 1 Jn. 4:18; Jude 1:12, 23; Rev. 1:17; 2:10; 11:11, 18; 14:7; 15:4; 18:10, 15; 19:5; 21:8

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.

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?

Originally posted by AshleyD
Edit to add: Your post HERE was also full of errors.

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!