Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible

Well,
Saint4God,
are you ever going to address this issue?

Or do you plan to keep making your false claim for ever ?


K.

Gday,

Just another reminder about this FALSE claim.


K.

This KEEPS coming up.

We should rename this forum to :

"The Council of Nicea Bible-canon-choice believers forum"


K.

Bump for flakey

This is now called the "Nicea Canon-choice myth forum"


K.

Bump for Hemisphere,
the latest to repeat this FALSE claim.


K.

hi all, just a comment an a question on eyewitness accounts of Jesus. the gospel of john ends this way:
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"...

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (second to last verse)
so here john is testifying that he is an eyewitness.

the question i have is, are any of you aware of a little book called the archko volume. it's authenticity is disputed, but it was supposedly a direct translation of original texts, scrolls of jewish court records of the time of jesus, which were found and translated by drs twyman and mcintosh in the st spohia mosque in constantinople, in october 1883. it also includes documents from the vatican library. the author makes every effort to uphold his integrity through notarized affidavits and letters in the introduction.
this little tome contains amazing eyewitness accounts of jesus, interviews with his parents and aquaintances commissioned by the jewish rulers, and defenses by caiaphas and melker the priest of bethlehem. i so wish someone could get into st sophia and ascertain the existence of the scrolls described. if true, this little volume is an absolute treasure. the excerpts are catalogued, such as, "REPORT OF CAIAPHAS TO THE SANHEDRIM CONCERNING THE EXECUTION OF JESUS--Records of the jerusalem Sanhedrin, by Eliezer Hyran, B. 24--Taken in Constantinople, October 16, 1883". much of the book is online.

i would love to hear more on this. i am not online often, but i will try to check back.

another question i have is were there really references to reincarnation in the scriptures which were later removed, purportedly by constantine's wife or mother... i can't remember where i read this.

Bishop Irenaeus of Lugdunum, Gaul (now Lyons, France) wrote in his "Against Heresies" (circa 180CE) the following:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

This is important that it indicates that the early church ascribed authorship of the Gospels to the men for which the Gospels were subsequently named (i. e., Mark really did write the Gospel of Mark). Throughout "Against Heresies", Irenaeus makes quotes from the Gospels from which a significant portion of the Gospels could be reconstructed. Hence we have that the Gospels in a complete form existed at least before 180CE, authorship had been credited to the men for which the Gospels were named, only the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) were accepted by the early church. The last point is important for it indicates that Council of Nicaea (325CE) was not entirely arbitrary in including only the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in the Bible, those were the ones which had been approved by the early church.

Gday,

Originally posted by stephsc
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (second to last verse)

so here john is testifying that he is an eyewitness.

Rubbish.

Does the author say "I" ?
No.

Does the author say "MY testimony" ?
No.

Someone ELSE added this passage to say that.

Unless you believe "we" means "I",
unless you believe "his" means "my".

This is clearly NOT an eye-witness claim t all.

It's someone ELSE making a claim about someone they never met.


Why do YOU think this is an eye-witness claim, steph?

Originally posted by stephsc
the question i have is, are any of you aware of a little book called the archko volume. it's authenticity is disputed,

It's a well-known FORGERY.
Do you actually BELIEVE it?


K.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Kapyong]

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger

This is important that it indicates that the early church ascribed authorship of the Gospels to the men for which the Gospels were subsequently named (i. e., Mark really did write the Gospel of Mark).

Irenaeus is the FIRST to name the Gospels - up until mid-late 2nd century, the Gospels were UN-NAMED.

Irenaeus named them himself - a century and a half after the alleged events.

The Gospels are actually anonymous - no-one knows who really wrote them.

Regardless of Christian BELIEFS.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
The last point is important for it indicates that Council of Nicaea (325CE) was not entirely arbitrary in including only the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John in the Bible, those were the ones which had been approved by the early church.

Oh dear oh dear...

The Councilm of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible.

They had NOTHING to do with that at all.

Haven't you read ANYHTHING on this thread?
Haven't you ever CHECKED up on the CoN?

If you do, you will find they did NOT EVEN DISCUSS the books of the bible.

This is a completely false claim that is endlessly repeated by un-informed people, over and over ... on and on .. over and over .. time and time again .. on and on .. for ever and ever...


K.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Kapyong

Irenaeus is the FIRST to name the Gospels - up until mid-late 2nd century, the Gospels were UN-NAMED. Irenaeus named them himself - a century and a half after the alleged events. The Gospels are actually anonymous - no-one knows who really wrote them. Regardless of Christian BELIEFS.

We know that Irenaeus was the first manuscript to list the Gospels by name was Irenaeus', but would you please explain to me (poor ignorant slut that I am) just how did Irenaeus chose those particular names.

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Iasion

 

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.


[edit on 24-9-2008 by toasted]

Shake Speare made an update in Psalm 46 of King James Version 1611.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Luther also choosed Psalm 46.
Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”) is based on Psalm 46.
www.light-of-truth.com...

Copy/Paste the next Luther text "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" to above link of Francis Bacon his ciphers and click on calculate. The result is 304.
Day 304 is October 31 (Luther day and Halloween day)


[edit on 23-4-2010 by hawk123]

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
We know that Irenaeus was the first manuscript to list the Gospels by name was Irenaeus', but would you please explain to me (poor ignorant slut that I am) just how did Irenaeus chose those particular names.

We will never know the exact thought processes, but we can see some clues :

G.Mark is Roman in flavour - it is ignorant of Judea, and explains things in Roman terms - so he attributed it to a Roman friend of Peter. Papias had already mentioned a writing by Mark (but which does not match our G.Mark.)

G.Matthew is Jewish in tone, so he attributed it to a Jewish follower Matthew. Papias had already mentioned a writing by Matthew (which does not match our G.Matthew.)

Paul had a friend Luke, so he attributed G.Luke to him.

G.John was originally considered to be by the gnostic Cerinthus, but a story grew that it was by John, so he named it after John.


K.

I hope I am not repeating anyone but the Council of Nicea dealt with accepting the Deity of Jesus Christ and accepting the truth of the Trinity.
It was the Council of Laodicea in A.D 363 that first addressed the Canon of Scripture. It decided that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

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.

Someone watches a little too much TV, and probably reads too many Dan Brown books.

reply to post by Illmatic67


The council of Nicea was much more concerned with the creed than the canon....ergo the Nicene Creed which we still use today. I am fascinated by the list of amazing people who were at that council, including one of my favorite saints, St.Nicholas

Gday,

Originally posted by pwhit
I hope I am not repeating anyone but the Council of Nicea dealt with accepting the Deity of Jesus Christ

Not correct.
The deity of Jesus was already accepted as far back as Paul.

The CoN dealt with the TYPE of deity Jesus had - whether it was equal or subordinate to God.

Originally posted by pwhit
and accepting the truth of the Trinity.

Wrong again.
The CoN did NOT discuss the trinity.

Originally posted by pwhit
It was the Council of Laodicea in A.D 363 that first addressed the Canon of Scripture.

The list of books is only found in the last canon from this council, which is not found in earlier mss - it's widely considered spurious.

Originally posted by pwhit
27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches.

Actually, the list has only 26 - not 27. It omits Revelation.


K.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Kapyong


I apologize! You are correct. The CoN dealt with developing a more concrete definition of Jesus' relationship to the Father, further specifying his unique status as "Son of God", "Word" or "Logos."

Gday,

Originally posted by pwhit
reply to post by Kapyong

 

I apologize! You are correct. The CoN dealt with developing a more concrete definition of Jesus' relationship to the Father, further specifying his unique status as "Son of God", "Word" or "Logos."

Wow.
Someone admitted error.

Well done pwhit :-)
You are a rarity here.


K.

reply to post by SomewhereinBetween


You hit the nail on the head with this one! I contend that because of all the human "tinkering" with the books of the bible from Contantine forward the canon of the bible as we have it was politically constructed so that the official "orthodox" teachings were promoted and unofficial "heretical" teachings were either omitted or condemned.

With this in mind, I must wonder if the contents of the books themselves have been "adjusted" to suit the religious authorities. For these reasons I rely more upon what was buried in Nag Hammadi than what is written in the bible.

FYI, I was raised and educated by the RCC but now find myself to be a barely-Christianized pagan.

The Council of Nicea was a convocation of men who were claiming to represent the teachings of a then obscure, but now famous, victim of Jewish ritual human sacrifice, called Jesus. This unholy gathering of men was instituted and paid for by the then Emperor of Rome, called Constantine. The convocation took place in 321 AD in Nicea, a town in what is now muslim controlled Turkey. However, at that time it were a Greek terratory under rule of the Roman Empire largely populated by pagan traditions. Christianity was non-existant at that time. The men who took part in this convocation were all of the Jewish variety. Their reason for coming together was so as to establish the NICEAN CREED. It is the fundamental doctrine of the so called "christian" faith even to this day. At that time the Holy Bible, as we know it today, was still non-existant. Thus the Council of Nicea would have had access only to the regular Jewish scriptures of the Jewish Torah [Pentatuch] plus the paganism of the day. The compilation of the Holy Bible [gospels] came a good century later. So the controversy is that the Gospels, containing the actual teachings of Jesus, teach a different religion than is taught by the Nicean Creed. This controversy is not going to melt into the wood work. It is simply massive in its ramifications. One cannot be both God and Mammon. One must be one or the other. The Holy Bible exists and must be protected against those within the hierachy who do not like the message it contains. The same must be said of all the various scriptures in the world. The burning of books is always an evil thing.

According to the Nicean Creed we are told to believe that Jesus was a Jew, a Son of David, the Son of God, a man, masculine, the expected Jewish Messiah, that he died and returned to life, then forty days later floated up into the sky, that all his disciples were men, that it is all about the Jewish religion and thus today interpreted as being about the struggle of the Zionists to restore the Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

According to the Gospels we read that Jesus could not possibly have been a Jew. Nor even a man. According to the Gospels Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin never touched by a man. She concieved Jesus by Immaculate Conception. Parthenogenesis. Virgin Birth. We know from modern science that the root cause of masculinity "male gamete" only transmits by sexual intercourse with a man. Thus it is logical to understand that Jesus must have been a daughter. Feminine. Further the Gospels tell us that Mary was not of Hebrew ancestry. Thus the Bible is telling us that Jesus was not a Son of David. Not a Jew. Not a man. I personally teach that it is very likely that Jesus was a Buddhist Nun. Notice the similarity between the Egyptian deity Isis and her daughter Hathor. Mary and her daughter Jesus. All by the process of Parthenogenesis. It is this process of parthenogenesis which makes Jesus a genuine holy person. Not having the Mark of the Beast "male gamete" in their chromosomes. Notice that the "Christae-Anne" [Holy Mary] feminine traditions of the "Way of Heaven" [ChienTao] are under attack from those who desire to be the "Way of Man" [Jeudaism].

I believe that true religion must respect the discoveries made by science. Rather than allow the paradigm to dictate the data, I suggest that the data must dictate the paradigm. The beliefs contained in the Nicean Creed are not able to survive the changes coming as a result of the scientific revolution. However, science is helping us to realise that the teachings of Jesus contained in the Gospels are Eternal Truth.

[edit on 13/5/2010 by CAELENIUM]