aa5874

You will not find facts to prove non-existence. Lack of credible information or lack of facts are the primary indicators of non-existence.


People need facts to prove the existence of Jesus.

Kapyong

Gday,

Eccles,
the CoN had NOTHING to do with the NT authorship or canon.

It's just an urban legend.
But not true.

(Nor did the Council of Constantinople.)

K.

IBelieveInHymn

The N.T was already a done deal by the year 325 a.d. 300+ years after Yeshua.

Kapyong

Gday,

Wrong.
The canon was not settled until LATE 4th C (Athanasius' 367 festal epistle; local councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.)

Constantine's Bibles, produced just after the CoN, were NOT the same as modern bibles.


K.

eccles

Kapyong, unless you are savvy to much more detailed history of the Roman Catholic Church that I am, remembering that I was an RC educated at Xavier College (Jesuit) in Melbourne in the 1950s, I suggest you read this about the Council of Nicea from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Now it, of course is biased but it does, at least give many of the facts including one that many people might not have known - that there are no minutes of the proceedings in existence.

em hotep

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

Thank 'god' I am Atheist

eccles

I am getting somewhat tired of all the arguments over the matter of the bible, especially the NT and the Council of Nicea etc. so HERE ARE THE FACTS:

What the Church doesn't want you to know
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament.

Read on: http://www.exminister.org/Forgedorigins_ofNT.html

I have done a lot of work on this, cross-checking facts and I conclude that is it true.

em hotep

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

Thank 'god' I am Atheist

Kapyong

Gday,

I read it.
But it does NOT say the CoN decided the canon of books of the NT.
Did you think it did?


Wrong.
The 'minutes of the meeting', known as the canons, DO exist to this day :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
(The page YOU cited listed these canons as still existing.)

There is NO mention of the canon of the NT books there.
You haven't confused the two meanings of 'canon', perchance?


Furthermore, we have several accounts of the meeting - not one mentions anything about the CoN deciding the canon of the NT.

* Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese Account of the Council of Nicea; The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine Book 3, Chapters VI-XXI treat the First Council of Nicaea.

* Athanasius of Alexandria, Defence of the Nicene Definition; Ad Afros Epistola Synodica

* Eustathius of Antioch, Letter recorded in Theodoret H.E. 1.7

* Socrates, Of the Synod which was held at Nicæa in Bithynia, and the Creed there put forth Book 1 Chapter 8 of his Ecclesiastical History, 5th century source.

* Sozomen, Of the Council convened at Nicæa on Account of Arius Book 1 Chapter 17 of his Ecclesiastical History, a 5th century source.

* Theodoret, General Council of Nicæa Book 1 Chapter 6 of his Ecclesiastical History; The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present Book 1 Chapter 9 of his Ecclesiastical History, a 5th century source;

* Philostorgius, Epitome of the Church History.


The facts are clear and present - the Council of Nicea did NOT decide the canon of the NT books.


It's a completely false urban legend, endlessly repeated on the 'net.



K.

eccles

The 'minutes of the meeting', known as the canons, DO exist to this day.

The Canons do exist, but they were not the minutes of the meeting. Look up the meaning of Church Canon on the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

The Canon I refer to was the canonic contents of the Roman Catholic Bible.
e.g, the Four Gospels are referred to as the "Canonic" Gospels.

What knowedge do you have of Church History and Canon Law? Were you educated in that?

em hotep

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

Thank 'god' I am Atheist

john_v_h

The Jesus that practically all Christians believe in does not, and never did, exist. That I can state with confidence based on the evidence surrounding miracles, resurrection, spirits, gods, etc.

jgoodguy

There may have been a Jesus and that Jesus was a Jew and his followers considered him to be an anointed person and venerated him without the virgin birth, god hood and physical resurrection.

That Jesus is not the God man of Paul and the gentile Christianity that became the present day Christianity. In point of fact that Christianity wiped out most traces of the older group.

The problem in proving any of this is that all primary evidence is non existent.