Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 09:02 AM

Dio,

You are promoting bad history. If you believe that the Council of Nicea voted on the books of the Bible and it was settled, then I would challenge you to provide proof of that in the form of the ancient records from that Council. Please refer back to Roger Pearse's link.

Gnostic Christianity is a branch of Christianity at best. You can't compare apples to oranges. Well, some do, but they are wrong.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 09:08 AM

The Canon we have now was decided at Nicea. If you want to argue that the Canon was officially decided before then, cough up the evidence.

Gnosticism and Pauline Christianity were two rival sects of Christianity. Both were branches from the same tree. Neither was the tree.

DavidfromTexas · 04-19-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The Canon we have now was decided at Nicea. If you want to argue that the Canon was officially decided before then, cough up the evidence.

Gnosticism and Pauline Christianity were two rival sects of Christianity. Both were branches from the same tree. Neither was the tree.

The above arguments would be a very good start in framing a formal debate in this area.

The claim that council of Nicea officially "decided" the canon is frequently tossed around as if it were a fact, yet there is very little to prove such.

The issue of gnosticism and Christianity is also another fascinating topic. Rather than make assertions with little evidence, why not formally debate the topic?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 09:29 AM

You're the one who's making the assertions. Let's see the evidence. Show me that the canon existed before Nicea.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

The issue of gnosticism and Christianity is also another fascinating topic. Rather than make assertions with little evidence, why not formally debate the topic?

You're the one who keeps claiming that Gnosticism wasn't Christianity. Prove it.

DavidfromTexas · 04-19-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is a pure example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. You're also completely wrong in your last assertion. The media has been completely consistent in reporting what the Canonicals say about Judas. There wouldn't be any juice in the story if GJudas didn't contradict the Canonicals. That contradiction IS the story (as far as the media is concerned...not so much for real scholars).

If the media is consistently reporting what the canonicals say about Judas, then perhaps I am not reading the same media that you are reading. Would you care to cite articles in the "media" that have quoted the following scriptural passages?

Matthew 26:25... Jesus informs Judas that Judas will betray Him.

John 6:71... Jesus indicates that He CHOSE Judas, implying that He knew all along that Judas would betray Him.

John 13:26... Jesus informs John that Judas is the one who will betray Him.

Acts 1:16... Indicates that King David spake concering Judas!

Acts 1:25... Indicates that Judas fell so that he could go to "his own place".

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 09:55 AM

They don't have the time to bore people by incessently quoting scripture but every story I've seen says that Judas is depicted as a "betrayer" in the Canonical Gospels. Why should they have to say any more than that?

S.C.Carlson · 04-19-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You're the one who's making the assertions. Let's see the evidence. Show me that the canon existed before Nicea.

The problem is that the canon did not exist as such for many decades after Nicea. That's why it didn't decide it.

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The problem is that the canon did not exist as such for many decades after Nicea. That's why it didn't decide it.

Stephen, this is true, but you know that canonical lists (eg. Muratorian Canon)existed before Nicea and that they contained most of the accepted books today with a couple of additions. Am I wrong?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Stephen, this is true, but you know that canonical lists (eg. Muratorian Canon)existed before Nicea and that they contained most of the accepted books today with a couple of additions. Am I wrong?

So it wasn't the same Canon, was it?

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

04-19-2006, 09:02 AM	#31
Phlox Pyros Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 7th Heaven Posts: 406	Dio, You are promoting bad history. If you believe that the Council of Nicea voted on the books of the Bible and it was settled, then I would challenge you to provide proof of that in the form of the ancient records from that Council. Please refer back to Roger Pearse's link. Gnostic Christianity is a branch of Christianity at best. You can't compare apples to oranges. Well, some do, but they are wrong.

04-19-2006, 09:08 AM	#32
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The Canon we have now was decided at Nicea. If you want to argue that the Canon was officially decided before then, cough up the evidence. Gnosticism and Pauline Christianity were two rival sects of Christianity. Both were branches from the same tree. Neither was the tree.

04-19-2006, 09:29 AM	#34
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	You're the one who's making the assertions. Let's see the evidence. Show me that the canon existed before Nicea.

04-19-2006, 09:55 AM	#37
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	They don't have the time to bore people by incessently quoting scripture but every story I've seen says that Judas is depicted as a "betrayer" in the Canonical Gospels. Why should they have to say any more than that?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.