The Biblical Canon

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
actually that is pretty much exactly how it worked. Only it was pretty much one
bishop ca. 170-180 CE. Bishop Irenaeus. The council@Nicea pretty much just
accepted what he had listed….

It was as I recall at the Nicean council that the term was first used. Again as I recall
it was Bishop Arius to whom the term was applied, ( meaning to choose.) It was also
Arius who was beaten unconsious to silence his opposition to several issues at hand,
one being the divinity of the R. Jeshua.

First Council of Nicaea
The agenda of the synod were:
1. The Arian question;
2. The celebration of Passover;
3. The Meletian schism;
4. The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
5. The baptism of heretics;
6. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

This list seems to be missing the following two items:

7. Willy nilly decide what goes in and what stays out of the Bible hour.
8. Beat Arius like a piñata to silence his opposition to the divinity of Jesus Christ, bring your own bat!!!

Maybe because the idea that the Bible was put together at the Council of Nicaea is an online urban legend:

Council of Nicaea and the Bible
There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact. Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever. These are in error. This page documents the problem and provides links to all the ancient source material in order to allow everyone to check the truth for themselves.

Somehow, unless I just plain missed it, even Wiki fails to mention this beating of Arius.

I also don’t see the council being headed by just one bishop, but rather an entire council convened by Emperor Constantine.

of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius

It also seems that this Arian view was not too popular, and if he did get the tar beat out of himself, perhaps he deserved it as not too many folks agreed with his teaching and in fact most called them Blasphemous.


[edit on 10/16/2006 by defcon5]

the bible, a plore to control man. its one thing to control for the better, but these days nonsense, what a crock. i beleive in god, but this is not his work. it probably wasnt for some time now. thousands of years.

Originally posted by littlebird
the bible, a plore to control man. its one thing to control for the better, but these days nonsense, what a crock. i beleive in god, but this is not his work. it probably wasnt for some time now. thousands of years.

[sarcasm]
OMG! Your right, you have totally changed my belief system with this masterpiece of writing, backed up with links and evidence. How could I have been soooo wrong in the past?[/ sarcasm]

So what is your proof that the Bible is not he word of God?

How do you figure that a religion that teaches salvation through grace is a religion of control?

A religion that is based on WORKS is a religion that is geared for control, not one based on grace…

Originally posted by defcon5

So what is your proof that the Bible is not he word of God?

How do you figure that a religion that teaches salvation through grace is a religion of control?

If a God, any God, wanted you to know his word it would be "printed" in your brain not on a piece of paper.

Is the Bible the word of God? Do you have proof?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Salvation through grace or the eternal torture of hell is a religion of control.

OK I will try this again and bold the pertinant parts.( I'll type slower if that will help).

Only it was pretty much one
bishop ca. 170-180 CE. Bishop Irenaeus. The council@Nicea pretty much just
accepted what he had listed

It appears that Irenaeus compiled a list of writtings in 170-180 CE. It was this list
(primarily) that came to make up the NT.
the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) approxamately 140 years later basically ratified this list with some changes. Other changes like reincarnation were made later.

the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) also set several dates for celebrations,
easter and the birth being two of them as I recall.

I also don’t see the council being headed by just one bishop,

Didnt say it was. although it was Led by the bishop of rome.

but rather an entire council convened by Emperor Constantine.

absolutely, and It was Constantine after several days of wrangeling that ordered
all that disagreed , chose to follow different beliefs than were voted in (Heritics)
be banished from the empire.

Perhaps reading something other than WIKI and other online sources might be in order? History and the world does not revolve around a computer.

NJE777, there have been other additions to the Bible from people not belonging to the Church. There is a passage now known as the 'Comma Johanneum' that was added to the Bible where this phrase (in bold) was added:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (KJB 1 John 5:7–8)

[edit on 16-10-2006 by DJMessiah]

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) approxamately 140 years later basically ratified this list with some changes. Other changes like reincarnation were made later.

The council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with chosing the books of the bible.

The council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with ratifing a list of books in the Bible.


The coucil of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to with the Bible in any capacity. This is all BS from the De Vinci Code.

Defcon thank you for your information; this is very interesting.

I dont have time to respond myself at the moment, but will v soon. Just quickly, I couldnt find 95 Thesis pertaining to Martin Luther.

Also, I was reading my own KJV (as I do) and read that there was 400 year gap between OT and NT. I will summise it as a lot was going on during this time.
ok thanks

Hey all, i'm a new member, and I've decided that this is a good place to start posting.

Sun Matrix is right. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding what
books were to be included in the Biblical Canon. This is all that Da Vinci Code
crap.

The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD officially decided what books were to
be included in the Canon as Divine Scripture, backing up the Synod of Hippo Regius in 393 AD (although the acts of this council were lost, it was referred to
at the Council of Carthage, so we know what conclusions it came too, just not everything it did).
The only thing of real importance that came out of the Council of Nicea was the Nicean Creed. (don't belive all that crap about it being for the deification of Jesus, as Da Vinci Code enthusiasts would have you believe)

This is all that Da Vinci Code crap

Nice try , however the nicean council information was around long before Mr. Brown
wrote his first sentence. In fact long before he was a gleam in his daddys eye.
Just as the Followers of the Magdalene, The Bloodline theory, The Jesus didnt die theory,
and much else he used in his book.

all research is not available online. Nor is all learning contained in books.

I agree with you, such theories were around before Dan Brown. However, he is the one who really promulgated such ludicrous theories. And it's sad that alot of people take the information as fact.

The gist of my argument, which you apparently missed, was that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the decision of which Books to include in the Biblical Canon. They may have discussed the topic, but no decision was made here. Once again, the only thing of any importance that came out of the Council of Nicea was the Nicean Creed. The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD officially decided which books were to be inlcluded in the Canon.
Also, the whole thing about the deification of Jesus at the Council of Nicea is really a side note. By then, this was long accepted as fact. I believe it was Dan Brown, correct me if i'm wrong, or may have been in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that stated that when it came time to vote on the issue it barely passed by a narrow margin(something like 1 vote), when in fact, the documents from the council stated that only one person actually voted against it. Most of his claims and his theories are completely destroyed when you look at the actual documents and the actual evidence. The deification was something that just had to be done officially, much like everything, to put it onto paper and make it an official teaching, even if it has been accepted long before that and had already become a teaching. Things like that just need to be made official. Sorry if i got off topic, just wanted to clear some things up, and the whole deification and Council of Nicea are really just a sidenote in Church history(except for the Nicean Creed, the only real important by-product of the Council).

soshootme

Originally posted by Sun Matrix


The coucil of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to with the Bible in any capacity. This is all BS from the De Vinci Code.

Wrong, this theory existed long before the Da Vinci code ever existed. I suggest you research things before you make comments.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Sun Matrix


The coucil of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to with the Bible in any capacity. This is all BS from the De Vinci Code.

Wrong, this theory existed long before the Da Vinci code ever existed. I suggest you research things before you make comments.

The statement that the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible in any capactiy is fact.

I suggest you prove that statement wrong.

The incorrect theory of the Nicean council having anything to do with the Bible may have been around but the De Vinci Code brought it to the forefront where the blind could easily find it.

And so you have.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
NJE777, there have been other additions to the Bible from people not belonging to the Church. There is a passage now known as the 'Comma Johanneum' that was added to the Bible where this phrase (in bold) was added:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (KJB 1 John 5:7–8)

[edit on 16-10-2006 by DJMessiah]

There's a number of those -- again (as Nygdan pointed out), this was more for liturgical reasons than anything else.

Two small points -- the group of books were generally agreed upon but were not universally agreed upon and it took quite some time to get something that most agreed with.

and (a point often missed by many) the first "bishops" of the church who decided the basic canons in 100 AD or so were those who had been taught directly by Paul or one of the apostles, or by people who had been taught by Paul and the apostles. So the ones making the decisions were not strangers to the founders of the faith.

Exactly correct.



*Removed quote of entire previous post*


[edit on 17-10-2006 by dbates]

The biblical canon still hasnt been finished as certain groups disagree with others while some disagree totally and reject quite a few books.
It would depend on which of over 300 christian denominations you are!

Byrd - while there was a collection of 'books' doing the rounds in about 100 CE this was by no means a basic canon, different groups used very different manuscripts and there was not a lot of the NT going around at the time. One of the earliest canons was Marcions (sp?) at around 150 CE but he was labelled a heretic.


G

The gist of my argument, which you apparently missed, was that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the decision of which Books to include in the Biblical Canon.

The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD officially decided which books were to be inlcluded in the Canon.

Interesting as history records that Constantine commisioned 50 copies of a bible that was to contain the writings agreed upon @ Nicea (one of the objectives of the council as his predecessor Diocletian had ordered ALL xian writings to be destroyed). Constantine Died, was dead, no longer existed in this realm, in 337CE.

even if it has been accepted long before that and had already become a teaching.

But accepted by only some of the sects.

the first "bishops" of the church who decided the basic canons in 100 AD or so were those who had been taught directly by Paul or one of the apostles, or by people who had been taught by Paul and the apostles. So the ones making the decisions were not strangers to the founders of the faith.

While this statement is basically true , I must disagree with you in part. This statement implies that the followers of R. Jeshua agreed with and accepted Paul
and his teachings. This is demonstrabily wrong. Paul and the Church@ Jerusalem
lead by James, Mary , and the other Brothers ( and possibly Sisters) of the Rabbi
were at constant odds with Paul and his teachings. The only member of the original
following of the Rabbi to verifiably accept Paul and his teachings was Peter the thick.

From the Church @ Jerusalem derived the churches of Arius, Mani, What has become known as Gnosticism and several others. They were also associated wiht several Johnnanite sects ( from which many believe the Book of John eminated).

In short after several days of endless arguement(and as I recall the beating of Arius) Constantine ordered that all who did not capitulate should immediatly be banished from the empire. So given the choice of agreeing or being exiled from your known world , what would you choose? agree and then teach what you believed secretly
or banishment and teaching/preaching to the rocks?

The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD officially decided which books were to be inlcluded in the Canon.
even if it has been accepted long before that and had already become a teaching.

Interesting being as Constantine is known to have commisioned 50 copies of this canon and by this date 397ce he had been dead for 50 years. perhaps this assemblige simply ratified the work commisioned by Constantine?

quote: The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD officially decided which books were to be inlcluded in the Canon.
even if it has been accepted long before that and had already become a teaching.



"Interesting being as Constantine is known to have commisioned 50 copies of this canon and by this date 397ce he had been dead for 50 years. perhaps this assemblige simply ratified the work commisioned by Constantine?"

I'm not really sure how to quote posts, so forgive me on the above, i'm still learning.

That is a good point stalkingwolf. I was simply saying that the Council of Carthage was the Council at which the Biblical Canon was officially ratified and put into operation(if you will). Many Councils before that had discussed and argued over the Biblical Canon, that is true. I think most of us agree there was a general consensus before any of these councils of what books were the Canon. So, yes, I agree, the Canon was discussed at the Council of Nicea, and most likely came to a general consensus. However, this was done at dozens of gatherings and Synods. Once again, the council of Nicea is only a sidenote in the ratification of the Biblical Canon, because they made no real headway in the process of making it official.

So, yes, stalkingwolf you make a valid point. I was talking about something a little bit different though.

Once again, the council of Nicea is only a sidenote in the ratification of the Biblical Canon,

It is to my knowledge also the only one headed by an emporer of the known/civilized world. The only one where in dissenters were threatened with banishment. And the only
one that was followed(a few years later as I recall) by a comment from one of the presiding bishops ( may have been the Bishop of Rome. I dont have time now to look it up) " salvation is now a matter for Constantine not Jesus."

I do feel there is truth to this...as I stated before the Romans went to great lengths to dilute the scriptures...

But I spose these are labelled heretic also? Thanks be to GOD for heretic then...

the holy scriptures of Essene Church of Christ are the authentic records of the teachings of Jesus, the records as they existed before alteration by merchants of death. (These persons are referred to as "merchants of death" because they earned their income via the enslavement, pain and death of other beings.) As Jesus predicted (his predictions in this regard are quoted in our Commentary on Doctrine One), these merchants of death took over the early Christian-Essene church, changed the manuscripts, and created a State-run religion. But Jesus also predicted that at a certain point in history -- the cusp between ages where we now stand -- his true teachings would come to light. AND THEY HAVE!

....When the soldiers of the Roman Emperor "Constantine the Great" were sent to confiscate all copies of the original Essene-Christian New Testament(Constantine had forcibly seized control of the Christian Church, changed the manuscripts, and created a State-run religion), some brave Essene-Christian monks went to India and deposited a copy of the authentic Essene-Christian New Testament in the Mystery School library of a Buddhist monastery. (Several centuries later the manuscript was moved from the Indian Buddhist monastery to a monastery in Tibet.) IT WAS THAT MANUSCRIPT -- The Gospel of the Holy Twelve THAT WAS TRANSLATED BY REV. GIDEON JASPER OUSELEY IN THE 1880's. The Gospel of the Holy Twelve IS THE AUTHENTIC NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS, the version that existed before the manuscripts were tampered with. It includes many of the New Testament stories and teachings modern Christians are familiar with, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES MANY IMPORTANT TEACHINGS OF JESUS WHICH WERE LOST FOR NEARLY 2,000 YEARS, such as: VEGETARIANISM, REINCARNATION and the FEMININE ASPECT OF GOD.

Ref: www.essene.org...

Please note my emphasis is in bold, shouting is within quote

As for the Essenes...they are the direct lineage from Jesus Christ...Mary was also an Essene...but I guess that doesnt count for anything? Except debunking...
www.essenespirit.com...

Oh also I have spent much time reading Genesis and Enoch. Enoch is fabulous...cant fathom what is so wrong about it?? The account of creation is exhaustive in comparison with one page or maybe 2 in Genesis... hmm Genesis provides a very simplified account. Anyone read Genesis lately? Please do, then read Enoch.

And Abraham..what an inciteful look into death. Oh gee I am raving about Abraham again... As a firm believer in Jesus Christ and GOD, I cannot understand the omission of those books in the Biblical Cannon...

Before writing them off ... Have you read some of these books?




edit -> grammar :bnghd:




[edit on 20-10-2006 by NJE777]