Council of Nicaea Myth Debunked

A frequently employed bible bashing canard utilized frequently on ATS by skeptics is completely debunked. The fable goes that the bible was drastically altered and manipulated at the council of Nicaea. Valuable books were spuriously excluded to the whims of the manipulative masters. The horror!

Turns out that story is proven to be based in reality about to the same degree as Goldilocks and the 3 Bears. The bigoted bible bashing Christian persecuters seem to to be rapidly running out of viable material. Ohh well, I guess there are always lies... oops that all they ever had. :shk:

Enjoy the flick.

While it may be true the Council of Nicea didn't tackle the specific issue of canon formation, this formation did occur in the early church. The wiki article on the Development of the New Testament canon is pretty detailed and has good references for further reading on this topic.

There were many contentious works of the early Christian community excluded from the official Christian scripture, and this process of canon formation continued right through the Protestant Reformation, and even into today.

I personally think the conspiracy theories about canon formation being a front for hiding deep dark secrets about Jesus's "true" nature are distracting. These debates were conducted in a specific historical and socio-economic climate. It's necessary to examine not just the theological reasons why certain works were excluded, but the how and why of this exclusion at that particular time. It's really fascinating history.

You'd be surprised at the number of Christians who think that too. It's wrong.

Anyone who wants to know the history of the Word of God needs to read this essay, it's an amazing work of literature:

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

The council of Nicaea did not have anything to do with the reformation of the church cannon, nor the editing of the biblical text. However the Council of Trent did.

A full list of the subjects covered in the catholic church can be found here. Including...The Fourth Session of The Council of Trent

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Emphasis: Mine
Hyper-linkage: Mine

Before this council, various versions and editions of the bible were commonly used. Some bibles had books within them that others did not. The oldest complete version of the bible known to exist is the codex sinaiticus which is heavily corrected (this "correction" is just another word for edited)

So between the 3rd or 4th century when bibles were hand crafted to the 16th century, no official cannon was adopted by the church. The Council of Trent was in fact the point in time that the biblical cannon as it is known today was selected. This edition was in line with what the church sought to teach.

The amount of editing done to the bible is apparent in the versions of the bible today. In The English language there are over a hundred versions of the bible, showing that the bible itself has been heavily edited through the ages.

However the Council of Trent did.

The Council of Trent was finished in 1563! It was a Roman Catholic convention against protestantism more than anything else. So it is rather inconsequential in that the New Testament as we have it today had already been decided upon some 1300 -1400 years earlier by the early church fathers. All Trent did was adopt what was already the standard cannon plus the Catholics added some questionable Apocryphal texts. All the books by a predate Trent by over 1000 years and are available in their original Greek untranslated manuscripts. Hardly matches the contrivances and edits alleged by the pseudo scholars of anti theism. The skeptics are profoundly debunked.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]

The video is entertaining, however unconvincing. Just because there is a you tube video, it does not mean it's been totally debunked. Besides, Constantine called the council to gain power, and for me that is what is relevant.

The bible holds water like a fisherman's net, so the canon means little anyways. Nice try!

You get an E for effort



[edit on 9/23/2008 by eye open doors]

The amount of editing done to the bible is apparent in the versions of the bible today. In The English language there are over a hundred versions of the bible, showing that the bible itself has been heavily edited through the ages.

Pure sophistry or somebody is lacking understanding between the concepts of translation and editing. We have manuscripts from the first century in the original language to verify there is no "editing" - the only editing that has ever occurred goes in the exact opposite direction of the allegations. For instance the removal of controversial 1 John 5:7 which explicitly states the trinity. So you fail to have a point. Hey if it makes you feel better about your lifestyle then run play - life is short and eternity is... well eternal -- so live it up. Just don't expect anyone else to fall for it.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing. I was watching the video, listening to the narrator, then realized the voice sounded really familiar. He's actually someone I know off of ATS although he is a member here, too. Small world. lol Very nice guy and always researches his material thoroughly. Thanks again for posting this.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by AshleyD]

Confirmation is always cool.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Hi/

Has the video been removed?

icxn
helen

reply to post by helen670


I think he must have updated it - I found the new version for you.

reply to post by Bigwhammy




Hi/
Thanks for that!

icxn
helen

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Council of Nicea (325) and revised with additions by the First Council of Constantinople (381), is a creed that summarises the orthodox faith of the Christian Church and is used in the liturgy of most Christian Churches. This article endeavours to give the text of English-language translations in current liturgical use.

Thus the Trinity debate ended, and this doctrine was established.
This is no myth, it is a fact of history

I too "know" the guy that made this video. I have great respect for him. Unfortunatly, he is a believer and defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is pretty much what the council was about.

The council was not about inventing the story of Jesus, but about establishing WHO he was:

Son of God -vs- God the Son

The Debate went on for months with this end result: Jesus being elevated to the status of God Almighty, and the doctrine being forced on the people. If you lived in those days and you believed otherwise, you had better kept your mouth SHUT... or else.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by holywar]

reply to post by holywar


Why do you say they elevated Jesus? Because the scripture is quite clear.

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," (Col 2:9)

Jesus deity isn't a debatable item unless you just reject Paul's writings.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by holywar

 

Why do you say they elevated Jesus? Because the scripture is quite clear.

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," (Col 2:9)

Jesus deity isn't a debatable item unless you just reject Paul's writings.

Jesus' deity isn't a debatable item, and yet that's exactly what was debated at the council..... lol.

Col. 2:9, that seems to be your favorite text...

Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians?

Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else?

Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.” Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7)

It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o′tes (the nominative form, from which the·o′te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by holywar

 

Why do you say they elevated Jesus? Because the scripture is quite clear.

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," (Col 2:9)

Jesus deity isn't a debatable item unless you just reject Paul's writings.

Notice how the author is speaking in the present tense?
swmatikwv means a spiritual body, and not the body Jesus had in his normal life before he was crucified. This would seem to go along with the vision of Daniel of the son of man coming up to the Ancient of Days and receiving power.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's a very good point Jmdewey!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father.

All things that were created were created by the Word. How could the Word then be created?
The Word would have to have been begotten. Jesus said that he literally came out of God. That would have to negate the idea that God created the Word out of nothing.