It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
I also believe that over time, men seeking power and control over the masses perverted the message of the Bible, or they tailored the Bible to fit a particular agenda, which is where the council of Nicea comes into play. Who gave those men the authority to determine what should be in the Bible and what should not?
Don't fall for this internet myth. The cannon of scripture was never discussed at the Nicean Council. The council was convened to address the "Arian Controversy" dealing with the deity of Jesus Christ. Don't help to perpetuate this lie, expose it.
Nicea: The "Real" Story VS The Facts
I have felt this way long before the internet. It may be wrong, or it may not be, but I came to this conclusion based on several books that I have read. I am not simply regurgitating something that I saw on some irrelevant blog or website. I will certainly look into your point of view, thanks for the information.
The agenda of the synod included:
1: The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father
and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
2: The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3: The Meletian schism
4: The validity of baptism by heretics
5: The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius
The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire but most theologians actually did not believe in the divinity of Christ at the time. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father........
St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.
"MISCONCEPTIONS"
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all. The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
Dude stop it..... I nearly wetting myself with laughter.
You use as a refference for information on the council of nicea something called serious christian.org
ROFLMFAO
yeah Im sure thats not biased in anyway.
Seriously do you do stand up when your not trolling the boards at ATS?
"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
I also believe that over time, men seeking power and control over the masses perverted the message of the Bible, or they tailored the Bible to fit a particular agenda, which is where the council of Nicea comes into play. Who gave those men the authority to determine what should be in the Bible and what should not?
Don't fall for this internet myth. The cannon of scripture was never discussed at the Nicean Council. The council was convened to address the "Arian Controversy" dealing with the deity of Jesus Christ. Don't help to perpetuate this lie, expose it.
Nicea: The "Real" Story VS The Facts
Dude stop it..... I nearly wetting myself with laughter.
You use as a refference for information on the council of nicea something called serious christian.org
ROFLMFAO
yeah Im sure thats not biased in anyway.
Seriously do you do stand up when your not trolling the boards at ATS?
How about Wikipedia? It says the same thing as the Christian source. Besides your claim of "bias" is irrelevant, the book/movie/website et cetra is biased that made the error of claiming Nicea is where the Biblical Cannon was decided upon.
Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
Correct you are. Jesus was a Jew. what I did say, or tried to imply, was that His teachings were the catalyst for HIs followers who were first called "Christians" in the book of Acts. So followers of Jesus were called "Followers of the Way" and "Christians". Maybe "Christianity" has a better ring to it than "Followers of the Wayianity".
On a serios note, I never said in my post that Jesus was a Christian.
Jesus Christ was the most "educated" Christian anyone will ever find.