Originally posted by Hermit777
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Hermit777
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by redhorse
Where did you get your history? The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the books of the Bible, the Council was called to address the Arian
heresy (exactly how to define Christ's deity). The last book of the Bible was Revelation written in 95-96 AD. All Paul's letters were written
before 65 AD, same with Peter. So what are you talking about?
The The Council of Nicaea had everything to do with Stating what belonged and what did not. There were many versions including the Gnostics. It was
The Council of Nicaea that removed or stated what belonged in the Cannon and what did not. Anything that did not control people was removed.
I wish I had a dollar for everytime I have to say this... Lord knows that Dan Brown made enough with his disinformation that cause people to think
this, but... my cross to bear, lol.
No, the Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with determining what went into the Bible. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
We have historical records that demonstrate that Biblical Canon had been largely settled over a hundred years prior to the Council.
We have historical records that show what WAS discussed at this conference, and it was the Arian controversy, not anything at all to do with the
You, on the other hand, have The Da Vinci Code or some equally dubious fiction.
Ah no my PhD says i am correct and Dan Brown writes nice fiction base on some fact and a lot of supposition.
There were 3 Major Cannons the Greek and Egyptian are 2 and were Weeded by the Council of Nicaea, and then Outlawed. As i said they were still ROMAN
and wanted Control. And nothing was actually Settled 100 years earlier except staying away from LIONS in the Colosseum. The Romans wanted Control,
the head of the Roman Empire was just trying to keep his Empire together. With all that there are still 2 Catholic Churches,
Greek Orthodox and Roman Orthodox. They just could not make it happen in 350 but close to finding a new way to control the people. Oh and BTW the
Emperor with In Hoc Signo Vinces still did not get Baptized until he was on his deathbed. So much for his Belief. His little trick kept everything
afloat for almost 300 more years.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Hermit777 because: completeness
You have a PhD? Cool! In what, from where? You do not type like someone with a PhD, with the poor grammar, lack of punctuation, and misspellings and
all. The Coptic (Egyption) and Greek Catholic Churches still exist today, albeit not under Rome. There were not three cannons, but five by the time
Nicea rolled around.
"By the fifth century, a "pentarchy" or system of five sees (patriarchates), with a settled order of precedence, had been established. Rome, as the
ancient center and largest city of the empire, was understandably given the presidency or primacy of honor within the pentarchy into which Christendom
was now divided. Plainly, this system of patriarchs and metropolitans was exclusively the result of ecclesiastical legislation; there was nothing
inherently divine in its origin. None of the five sees, in short, possessed its authority by divine right. Had this been so, Alexandria could not have
been demoted to third rank in order to have Constantinople exalted to second place. The determining factor was simply their secular status as the most
important cities in the empire. Typically, each of the five patriarchs was totally sovereign within his sphere of jurisdiction."
The primacy of Rome, as such, did not entail universal jurisdictional power over the others. On the contrary, all bishops, whether patriarchs or not,
were equal. No one bishop, however exalted his see or diocese, could claim supremacy over the others. The bishop of Rome was simply vested with the
presidency, as the senior bishop - the first among equals.
The Copts and the Armanians broke off in the fifth century, but the Greek and Byzantine Traditions actually held on for quite a bit. There is not a
real exact date and the issues revolved cultural, political, and linguistic differences as well as theological. Any narrative of the schism which
emphasizes one at the expense of the other will be fragmentary.
Put down the Dan Brown and actually study some history.