Kapyong

Gday,

I know what it means.
The 'canons of the council' and 'minutes of the meeting' mean essentially the same thing - the official record of the decisions taken.

The official record of the Council of Nicea does NOT say ANYTHING about the canon of NT books.


Yes.
The canon of the NT means the list of books that make-up the NT.

Which the Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with.
You have realised that by now, surely?


Enough to not be taken in be an urban legend.

Come on eccles, you must have realised you are mistaken by now?


K.

eccles

I stand by my posts and would like the discussion to conclude. It is getting nowhere.

em hotep

Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)

Thank 'god' I am Atheist

Kapyong

Gday,

Surely you aren't arguing the NT books weren't even written by then?
This must mean they hadn't been COMPILED yet - we agree.


Constantine born in Britain?
Really? What is the evidence?
Most sources say Naissus (Nis in Serbia.)

Yes, he arranged for A compilation some years AFTER Nicea.
It's probable that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are copies of these.

And guess what?
They are DIFFERENT to modern Bibles (Hermas, Barnabas.)

So neither Nicea, nor Constantine, decided the NT canon.

It crystalized later that century (Athanasius; Hippo, Rome, Carthage.)


But yet you got it wrong :-(

Do you have ANY evidence that Nicea decided the books of the NT?



K.

aa5874

Why wipe out traces of Jesus and then forge the writings of Josephus to claim Jesus did exist?

If there was credible evidence of Jesus external of the Church, the Church writers would have very likely used the information from the external sources.

In the NT, Jesus was called a Devil so the Church writers should have not been alarmed if an eyewitness or contemporary writer ridiculed the historical Jesus if he did exist.

eccles

Yes, I shall correct: "Constantine born in Britain?
Really? What is the evidence?
Most sources say Naissus (Nis in Serbia.)

That must have been in one of the c & p's
This is correct:

Constantine, named Flavius Valerius Constantinus, was born in the Moesian military city of Naissus (Niš, Serbia) on the 27th of February of an uncertain year,[25] probably near 272.[26] His father was Flavius Constantius, a native of Moesia Superior (later Dacia Ripensis).[27] Constantius was a tolerant and politically skilled man.[28] Constantine probably spent little time with his father.[29] Constantius was an officer in the Roman army in 272, part of the Emperor Aurelian's imperial bodyguard. Constantius advanced through the ranks, earning the governorship of Dalmatia from Emperor Diocletian, another of Aurelian's companions from Illyricum, in 284 or 285.[27] Constantine's mother was Helena, a Bithynian Greek of humble origin. It is uncertain whether she was legally married to Constantius or merely his concubine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Constantine recognized the implicit danger in remaining at Galerius' court, where he was held as a virtual hostage. His career depended on being rescued by his father in the west. Constantius was quick to intervene.[56] In the late spring or early summer of 305, Constantius requested leave for his son, to help him campaign in Britain. After a long evening of drinking, Galerius granted the request. Constantine's later propaganda describes how Constantine fled the court in the night, before Galerius could change his mind. He rode from post-house to post-house at high speed, mutilating every horse in his wake.[57] By the time Galerius awoke the following morning, Constantine had fled too far to be caught.[58] Constantine joined his father in Gaul, at Bononia (Boulogne) before the summer of 305.

From Bononia they crossed the Channel to Britain and made their way to Eboracum (York), capital of the province of Britannia Secunda and home to a large military base. Constantine was able to spend a year in northern Britain at his father's side, campaigning against the Picts beyond Hadrian's Wall in the summer and autumn.[60] Constantius's campaign, like that of Septimius Severus before it, probably advanced far into the north without achieving great success.[61] Constantius had become severely sick over the course of his reign, and died on 25 July 306 in Eboracum (York). Before dying, he declared his support for raising Constantine to the rank of full Augustus. The Alamannic king Chrocus, a barbarian taken into service under Constantius, then proclaimed Constantine as Augustus. The troops loyal to Constantius' memory followed him in acclamation. Gaul and Britain quickly accepted his rule;[62] Iberia, which had been in his father's domain for less than a year, rejected it.[63]

em hotep

Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)

Thank 'god' I am Atheist

jgoodguy

Any traces of the Historical Jesus would have been wiped out by the Romans and Jewish rebels in the Roman Jewish wars and later by the Roman Church as it eliminated any opposition.

We do know of Jewish Christians whose Jesus was not a god, born of a virgin and was not physically resurrected, but they were eliminated by the Roman army and the Roman church.

aa5874

The Romans did not wipe out all the history and traces of the Messiah called Simon Barcocheba. Even Church writers, Justin and Eusebius, wrote about Barcocheba

The Church and NT writers did not wipe out stories where the Pharisees called Jesus the Devil.

Now, if Josephus, being a Pharisee wrote that Jesus was a Devil, and deserved to be crucified, then that would have been regarded as extremely credible evidence.

There is simple no indication that the Church would have wiped out all the history of Jesus that they claimed existed, if there was really a character called Jesus who supposedly did miracles that was deified after being crucified for blasphemy.

It would appear that the Church could not find any history and then had to manufacture some.

Kapyong

Gday,

But you just cannot bring yourself to actually say you were wrong.

So, YOU posted false information, and when caught out you blame someone else.

Yes, I know - because I told you, remember?
But you also can't bring yourself to admit I was right.

And now you pretend that I need to be informed ?!
When YOU got it wrong?
Such arrogance.


So anyway - who are you going to blame for your false claim that the Council of Nicea decided the books of the Bible?

Your page from the Catholic Encyclopedia does NOT claim that.

Your Tony Bushby's crackpot page didn't specifically claim it either.

The Wiki page does NOT claim that.

The official Canons of the Council of Nicea do NOT claim it.

The various accounts of the meeting do NOT claim it.


So far, you have not been able to produce even ONE piece of evidence to support your claim.


But yet you got it wrong about Constantine.
(And the CoN deciding the NT canon.)


K.

mountainman

I agree with this assessment:

Well done eccles.

premjan

Didn't realize Constantine was British.