Questions on the bible!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by spamandham
I quoted his own words from his article and explained why it proves him wrong,

You did nothing of the sort. At issue is 'did the council of nicea determine which gospels are cannonical'. It didn't. The passage you quoted states this.

That isn't what was being discussed.

The discussion regarded the canon as a whole, and not merely the gospels. The council did in fact cull out what it considered heretical books and letters, as the quote from roger indicates, and is consistent with the Catholic Encyclopedia he uses as his source. Do you simply deny he wrote that? Go read his link for yourself. Do you deny his sources are legitimate? Take it up with the Catholic church.

How can you claim that culling books is not the same as affirming the books that were not culled?

Nothing herioc is being asked here, just a straighforward explanation.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent, with regard to the 1st Nicean Council (325 CE),

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today.

Also in 325 CE, Eusebius (Advisor to Constantine) released his listing of the NT canon, which almost matches the current NT canon.

I'll accept the likelihood of the accuracy of this source over a few arrogant internet board posters anyday.

The part that may well be urban legend is the aspect of voting, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the Council in establishing the canon.

Originally posted by spamandham
The discussion regarded the canon as a whole, and not merely the gospels.

Dear god I think its close enough.

The council did in fact cull out what it considered heretical books and letters, as the quote from roger indicates

The quote:

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible

Constantine, a temporal official (emperor), ordered the destruction of Arian documents. The Council did not assemble the bible, selecting one document, reviewing its claim to fame, and then either including it in a collection or destroying it. At most, the council seems to have noted that some works are heretical: that they were against the already extant scriptures, not that they made the bible then and there.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Council did not assemble the bible, selecting one document, reviewing its claim to fame, and then either including it in a collection or destroying it. At most, the council seems to have noted that some works are heretical: that they were against the already extant scriptures, not that they made the bible then and there.

Read the quote above from newadvent. No-one is claiming that the 1st Nicean Council sat down and penned the scriptures, but they played an key role in solidifying the canon, as attested to by the history of the Catholic church (quoted in my previous post), and as confirmed by the listing of the canon Eusebius wrote that same year.

The objection about 'voting' was valid, and this whole set of nasty dialogue would have been avoided had roger simply clarified what he was talking about originally rather than assuming we are all mind readers.

Originally posted by speight89
Can anyone help me with this? I want to know why the vatican does not include ALL of the gospels and the full works of the writers?
.....
I know that many other writings have been left out! Does anyone know why?

Would you like easy Internet access to some of those writings? You can find some of them at two different sites.
www.pseudepigrapha.com...
fam-faerch.dk...
Personally, I have absolutely no idea why some were chosen and others rejected. I'm not Catholic, but don't lay the blame solely on the Vatican. The Catholic Bible was amassed at, did I read the Council of Nicea, or something like that in this thread? Anyway it was in use several centuries before the Reformation. At some time Protestants seem to have rejected part of the Catholic Bible. I have never heard when or why. All I know is that the Catholic Bible contains all of the Protestant Bible, plus a few extra books.

Originally posted by rawiea
At some time Protestants seem to have rejected part of the Catholic Bible. I have never heard when or why. All I know is that the Catholic Bible contains all of the Protestant Bible, plus a few extra books.

The council of Trent astablished the apochryphal books as equal to other books of the canon. By that time, protestantism was already under way.

Originally posted by spamandham

The council of Trent astablished the apochryphal books as equal to other books of the canon. By that time, protestantism was already under way.

Oh, You are saying that the apochryphal books were added to the Catholic Bible at a later date? I had just assumed that the Protestants deleted them. Thank you for the clarification, and I stand corrected.

Originally posted by spamandham
The discussion regarded the canon as a whole, and not merely the gospels. The council did in fact cull out what it considered heretical books and letters, as the quote from roger indicates,

You're still asserting this, although you've been told it isn't true, and shown evidence that it isn't. You also persist in asserting my words mean the opposite of what they say. Why are you doing these, surely very dubious, things?

and is consistent with the Catholic Encyclopedia he uses as his source.

I have no idea what you are asserting here. Are you asserting that the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that the bible was compiled at Nicaea? If so, produce your source -- and explain why we should prefer an opinion written in 1900 to statements by witnesses. Are you asserting that my comments are based on the CE? You are mistaken.

Nothing herioc is being asked here, just a straighforward explanation.

Please READ what is written, not what you wish were written.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by spamandham
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent, with regard to the 1st Nicean Council (325 CE),

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today.

Relevance?

I wonder... did you see the word 'acts', presume without reading that this referred to the biblical book of Acts, and so post this?

Also in 325 CE, Eusebius (Advisor to Constantine) released his listing of the NT canon, which almost matches the current NT canon.

?

I'll accept the likelihood of the accuracy of this source over a few arrogant internet board posters anyday.

So would I. I would even READ it, which you seem not to have done.

The part that may well be urban legend is the aspect of voting, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the Council in establishing the canon.

You have offered no evidence that it did.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Council did not assemble the bible, selecting one document, reviewing its claim to fame, and then either including it in a collection or destroying it. At most, the council seems to have noted that some works are heretical: that they were against the already extant scriptures, not that they made the bible then and there.

Correct.

Read the quote above from newadvent. No-one is claiming that the 1st Nicean Council sat down and penned the scriptures, but they played an key role in solidifying the canon, as attested to by the history of the Catholic church (quoted in my previous post), and as confirmed by the listing of the canon Eusebius wrote that same year.

I think I know what it is. Is it perchance that you think the word 'canons' refers to the bible?

The objection about 'voting' was valid, and this whole set of nasty dialogue would have been avoided had roger simply clarified what he was talking about originally rather than assuming we are all mind readers.

All the nastiness has come from you, my friend.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

i think the people that are saying the bible was not put together at the council of nicea need to give us an alternative. surely at some point in time the bible had to be put together, afterall it is a 'collection' of writings. hence, meaning scripture has been collected together and made as one. the whole point of the council of nicea was for constantine and others to agree on one religion. they then had to choose the books which best represented this one religion, which wasn't too important as most of the normal folk that would be a part of this religion, couldn't read.

so yeah, if you don't think the bible was put together at the council of nicea, then please enlighten us with your alternative. saying 'it just growed' is not an alternative worthy of being anywhere near correct.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i think the people that are saying the bible was not put together at the council of nicea need to give us an alternative. surely at some point in time the bible had to be put together, afterall it is a 'collection' of writings. hence, meaning scripture has been collected together and made as one.

A reasonable point, and I wanted to know as well. But there actually does not seem to be one point at which we can say 'the canon was finalised here and accepted by the whole church'. We're only talking about a couple of letters on the edge of the NT, which even today are not much used, so perhaps no-one got excited about it?

the whole point of the council of nicea was for constantine and others to agree on one religion.

This is mistaken. The council was called by the bishops to resolve dissention at Alexandria over whether the second person of the Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the first person, or merely of like substance. When the decision was made to do a council, Hosius of Cordoba persuaded Constantine to host the council, and pay the bills so Western bishops could attend.

so yeah, if you don't think the bible was put together at the council of nicea, then please enlighten us with your alternative. saying 'it just growed' is not an alternative worthy of being anywhere near correct.

Um, surely your education is your responsibility?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse
A reasonable point, and I wanted to know as well. But there actually does not seem to be one point at which we can say 'the canon was finalised here and accepted by the whole church'. We're only talking about a couple of letters on the edge of the NT, which even today are not much used, so perhaps no-one got excited about it?

it was probably canonised around the same time those warnings were put in the back of the NT. to sum them up, 'don't fiddle with this book, it is the word of god'. when that was done and dusted it was finalised that no other books were to be let in to the bible, that was it, hence there was a time when the bible was put together, by whom... i think the council of nicea, but you beg to differ.

Um, surely your education is your responsibility?

that's your alternative solution to how the bible was put together? maybe you won't answer because you have no alternative. maybe at the council of nicea the pages weren't actualy woven together, but merely that they chose what books would go in and what ones wouldn't. at a slightly later date maybe the same people present at nicea then went about putting togther the different scriptures that they had chosen.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by roger_pearse
A reasonable point, and I wanted to know as well. But there actually does not seem to be one point at which we can say 'the canon was finalised here and accepted by the whole church'. We're only talking about a couple of letters on the edge of the NT, which even today are not much used, so perhaps no-one got excited about it?

it was probably canonised around the same time those warnings were put in the back of the NT. to sum them up, 'don't fiddle with this book, it is the word of god'. when that was done and dusted it was finalised that no other books were to be let in to the bible, that was it, hence there was a time when the bible was put together, by whom... i think the council of nicea, but you beg to differ.

Mainly because I don't think my opinion worth anything. I wasn't there, so my guesses don't mean anything. What I always want -- and I think most people want -- are some facts, and this means "who actually said something about it in antiquity". Of course it gets interesting when they disagree. But wishful thinking only tells people about my background and prejudices, not about the subject I orate on. So I try not to do this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by rawiea

Originally posted by spamandham

The council of Trent astablished the apochryphal books as equal to other books of the canon. By that time, protestantism was already under way.

Oh, You are saying that the apochryphal books were added to the Catholic Bible at a later date? I had just assumed that the Protestants deleted them. Thank you for the clarification, and I stand corrected.

I don't think this is quite what he was saying. Let's be clear which books we refer to here: these are texts in the Old Testament such as Baruch, Tobit, etc, which had an uncertain status in Judaism in the time of Christ, and so had (and have) an uncertain status in Christianity. Some thought them scripture, almost (but not quite) on a par with the rest of the OT; others as not inspired but most useful. Augustine held the first view; Jerome the second, for instance.

At the reformation, Luther rejected them when he did his translation of the bible into the vernacular; the counter-reformation reasserted their presence in the canon, if possibly more forcefully than before.

No-one uses them in the anglophone world, as far as I know. But to give a quick quotation which some may feel relevant, from Ecclesiasticus 6:

"His talk is of bullocks."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i think the people that are saying the bible was not put together at the council of nicea need to give us an alternative.

Certainly not. The people that say it was assembled there need to demonstrate that it was.

surely at some point in time the bible had to be put together,

From what I understand, it occured slowly and over time, and not in the course of any gathering of bishops/cardinals/metropolitans/saints.

afterall it is a 'collection' of writings. hence, meaning scripture has been collected together and made as one.

Infact it does not mean this, it does not mean that it was collected together. The bible came together, practically on its own, as far as I understand, with no executive committee overseeing the process. Certain gospels, letters, documents, etc, were generally accepted by the early christian community, and came to be read at their liturgys (which early on merely occured in someone's house even). This population of early christians is what gave us the bulk of the bible, accepting these gospels and letters as authentic, and rejecting others, like the gnostic gospels, as heretical. At most, this Nicean Council noted that there are some specific heresies out there, such as Arianism, and tried to keep the faith orthodoxic, or 'right'. Catholicism comes in later, from what i understand, and tries to be a universal christian church, not incorporating heresies, but bringing everyone under one 'big tent', as they say. Which is ironic, because people ususally think of catholicism as being exclusionary and violently anti-heretical.

the whole point of the council of nicea was for constantine and others to agree on one religion.

This is absolutely not what the council was about.

they then had to choose the books which best represented this one religion, which wasn't too important as most of the normal folk that would be a part of this religion, couldn't read.

The normal folk read the letters addressed to them from the apostles, (even when it was addressed to the previous generation), as part of their church services. These are still roman times, keep in mind, not the Dark Ages, there was some degree of literacy. But I don't want to give the impression that there was very much at all.

saying 'it just growed' is not an alternative worthy of being anywhere near correct.

Regardless, its what happened.

maybe you won't answer because you have no alternative.

I really don't see how you or anyone else can make these statements. Mr. Pearse's pages on tertullian.org not only provide electronic copies of some of the relevant texts that aren't available anywhere else on-line, but also discusses them. The plain and simple fact is that the Nicean Council didn't put together a bible. Its a very widespread misconception that they did this, thats probably why you think they did, because you've been informed by people who also had falled prey to this misconception. The history of the formation of the bible is far more complicated than most people seem to realize.