Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Michael R. Jordan · 08-01-2006, 12:09 PM

Hello,

I am arguing against the myth that the council of Nicea had a paramount role within the NT canonization. Challenging people to rid this belief is like pulling teeth. Are there any additional credible sources that affirm my position besides Richard Carrier's paper, wiki, the catholic encyc, or microsoft encyc because these sources are not having the impact that i thought they would. I never seen such obstinacy than in the discussion i am having about this issue.

Camio · 08-01-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R. Jordan

I am arguing against the myth that the council of Nicea had a paramount role within the NT canonization. Challenging people to rid this belief is like pulling teeth. Are there any additional credible sources that affirm my position besides Richard Carrier's paper, wiki, the catholic encyc, or microsoft encyc

This article could interest you : http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Michael R. Jordan · 08-01-2006, 12:28 PM

for some reason, this link is not working.

Camio · 08-01-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R. Jordan

for some reason, this link is not working.

Strange. Did you try with Google cache ?

Here is the summary of the article:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

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.

Worth reading I guess.

Amaleq13 · 08-01-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R. Jordan

for some reason, this link is not working.

Works for me and I'm using Safari 2.0 which is often neglected by programmers.

Michael R. Jordan · 08-01-2006, 12:51 PM

Can someone copy and paste the whole thing ?

Any others?

Toto · 08-01-2006, 12:55 PM

Try the link again or try the google cache.

It's just a little too long to repeat.

Camio · 08-01-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R. Jordan

Any others?

Roger Pearse obviously put great effort into his rebuttal with a comprehensive list of original documents. I strongly doubt anybody else devoted so much time on the task as he did...

mountainman · 08-01-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R. Jordan

Hello,

I am arguing against the myth that the council of Nicea had a paramount role within the NT canonization.

In that case you and Roger Pearce need to understand that
the first time all the books of the bible, including the NT
and the OT, were bound together, AFAIK was the supreme
imperial glossy book that appeared to have been in the
possession of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, equipped
with his Canon Tables.

Constantine formally requested the copying of this bible
to the extent of 50 copies, shortly after 325 CE (NICEA)
in writing to Eusebius.

Constantine obviously decided to clone something that
was clearly already existent, and although there appears
to be no evidence to determine by what process which
books found their way into this first bible, the very
existence of the letter from Constantine to Eusebius
tells us that the decision had been made, because the
bookwas to be cloned 50 times.

Pete Brown

Michael R. Jordan · 08-01-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In that case you and Roger Pearce need to understand that
the first time all the books of the bible, including the NT
and the OT, were bound together, AFAIK was the supreme
imperial glossy book that appeared to have been in the
possession of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, equipped
with his Canon Tables.

Constantine formally requested the copying of this bible
to the extent of 50 copies, shortly after 325 CE (NICEA)
in writing to Eusebius.

Constantine obviously decided to clone something that
was clearly already existent, and although there appears
to be no evidence to determine by what process which
books found their way into this first bible, the very
existence of the letter from Constantine to Eusebius
tells us that the decision had been made, because the
bookwas to be cloned 50 times.

Pete Brown

Can I get others to confirm this?

08-01-2006, 12:09 PM	#1
Michael R. Jordan Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 232	Council of nicea and its role within NT canonization Hello, I am arguing against the myth that the council of Nicea had a paramount role within the NT canonization. Challenging people to rid this belief is like pulling teeth. Are there any additional credible sources that affirm my position besides Richard Carrier's paper, wiki, the catholic encyc, or microsoft encyc because these sources are not having the impact that i thought they would. I never seen such obstinacy than in the discussion i am having about this issue.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2006, 12:28 PM	#3
Michael R. Jordan Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 232	for some reason, this link is not working.

08-01-2006, 12:51 PM	#6
Michael R. Jordan Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 232	Can someone copy and paste the whole thing ? Any others?

08-01-2006, 12:55 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Try the link again or try the google cache. It's just a little too long to repeat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.