Gay Exorcism!?!?!

[Michael Chris]

Oh, now come on. Faith is one thing, but you must be joking. Do you know how many books have been removed from the Bible?

From accepted early canons, at most five remotely 'mainstream' New Testament books have been removed (I Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and one that escapes me). From the broader Ethiopian canon to say the Semitic canon (which I believe only accepts the Pentateuch) there are forty-nine old testament books.

 

[Amaris]

Oh, now come on. Faith is one thing, but you must be joking. Do you know how many books have been removed from the Bible?

From accepted early canons, at most five New Testament books have been removed (I Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and one that escapes me). From the broader Ethiopian canon to say the Semitic canon (which I believe only accepts the Pentateuch) there are forty-nine old testament books.

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

Brent, which one did God inspire?
The Catholic Bible of 73 books?
The Protestant Bible of 66 books?

The Masoretic texts or the Septuagint?

The Apocrypha? They were around until 1820 and *poof* they were gone. I guess God got tired of reading them. Right?
I mean, we're talking as if God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates. I guess they made a few mistakes. You'd think God would have caught that, but I digress.

Pretty negligent, though, for God to say you have the freedom to choose, but obscures himself so much while letting the evil side have far more influence. I mean, You have God, and then you have Satan, his demons, demonic possession and influence, obscured and modified texts from God's own Word. That is incredibly unbalanced, don't you think? I mean, there's free will and then there's letting the dogs eat your children.

One more thing, folks: Again, other faiths and religions have performed exorcisms with just as much effectiveness as those attributed to Christ and modern Christianity. So then answer me, how can Satan cast out Satan? Because a kingdom divided against itself cannot prevail.

J.

 

[Welshie]

Is Michael Chris seriously saying he is surprised that we are serious about being sceptical? That's the question.

Nah, I assume he's just trolling.

 

[Michael Chris]

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

J.

Quite a bit more to it, in fact. The books I mentioned were pretty much used in the fringes of the church and there was ample reason to exclude them. Although, a note: The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with it.

 

[Amaris]

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

J.

Quite a bit more to it, in fact. The books I mentioned were pretty much used in the fringes of the church and there was ample reason to exclude them. Although, a note: The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with it.

No, no they didn't. But they compiled the first Biblical texts, and man has changed the makeup of those texts over time. This means that the Council threw out thousands of manuscripts and texts in favor of those few, so either they were being directed of God, or they created Christianity by Committee. If the first, then the Protestant church has some grave sins to account for by changing God's word. If the second, then no one knows just what is absolutely correct or what is missing or added, and so it's best to approach the texts with that in mind.

J.

 

[Thestral]

Oh, now come on. Faith is one thing, but you must be joking. Do you know how many books have been removed from the Bible?

From accepted early canons, at most five New Testament books have been removed (I Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and one that escapes me). From the broader Ethiopian canon to say the Semitic canon (which I believe only accepts the Pentateuch) there are forty-nine old testament books.

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

Brent, which one did God inspire?
The Catholic Bible of 73 books?
The Protestant Bible of 66 books?

The Masoretic texts or the Septuagint?

The Apocrypha? They were around until 1820 and *poof* they were gone. I guess God got tired of reading them. Right?
I mean, we're talking as if God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates. I guess they made a few mistakes. You'd think God would have caught that, but I digress.

Not directed at me, but... Continuing Revelation re: the Canon? Also, different specifics for different people?

 

[Michael Chris]

No, no they didn't. But they compiled the first Biblical texts, and man has changed the makeup of those texts over time. This means that the Council threw out thousands of manuscripts and texts in favor of those few, so either they were being directed of God, or they created Christianity by Committee. If the first, then the Protestant church has some grave sins to account for by changing God's word. If the second, then no one knows just what is absolutely correct or what is missing or added, and so it's best to approach the texts with that in mind.

J.

Umm, no, the Council of Nicaea did nothing like that.

 

[Amaris]

From accepted early canons, at most five New Testament books have been removed (I Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and one that escapes me). From the broader Ethiopian canon to say the Semitic canon (which I believe only accepts the Pentateuch) there are forty-nine old testament books.

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

Brent, which one did God inspire?
The Catholic Bible of 73 books?
The Protestant Bible of 66 books?

The Masoretic texts or the Septuagint?

The Apocrypha? They were around until 1820 and *poof* they were gone. I guess God got tired of reading them. Right?
I mean, we're talking as if God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates. I guess they made a few mistakes. You'd think God would have caught that, but I digress.

Not directed at me, but... Continuing Revelation re: the Canon? Also, different specifics for different people?

If it is continuing revelation, then Protestants have changed the book of Revelation as it commands that no one add to or take away from the Bible, yet someone did. Many someones, and after the Council had declared canon of the first texts.

J.

 

[Amaris]

No, no they didn't. But they compiled the first Biblical texts, and man has changed the makeup of those texts over time. This means that the Council threw out thousands of manuscripts and texts in favor of those few, so either they were being directed of God, or they created Christianity by Committee. If the first, then the Protestant church has some grave sins to account for by changing God's word. If the second, then no one knows just what is absolutely correct or what is missing or added, and so it's best to approach the texts with that in mind.

J.

Umm, no, the Council of Nicaea did nothing like that.

Really?
So there was no controversy? No issues with included texts? No problems associated with authorship? No texts to be denied or confirmed? Really? It was so good that they held a Second Council of Nicaea some 400 years later because the first was just a blast?

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

The statement in Revelation isn't talking about the canon of scriptures.

 

[Michael Chris]

Really?
So there was no controversy? No issues with included texts? No problems associated with authorship? No texts to be denied or confirmed? Really? It was so good that they had a Second Council some 400 years later because the first was just a blast?

J.

What on earth are you talking about? The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the canon of the Bible.

 

[Amaris]

The statement in Revelation isn't talking about the canon of scriptures.

Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

It speaks of the book of revelation, but where did the book of revelation come from? The Bible wasn't one solid book, but a series of individual texts loosely associated as the compendium for the Christian faith. Yet the book of revelation was added to the Bible, so someone added to the book, that being, the rest of the Bible.

J.

 

[Amaris]

Really?
So there was no controversy? No issues with included texts? No problems associated with authorship? No texts to be denied or confirmed? Really? It was so good that they had a Second Council some 400 years later because the first was just a blast?

J.

What on earth are you talking about? The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the canon of the Bible.

What? The Council was formed to define Church doctrine. It has everything to do with the canon of the Bible.


J.

 

[Michael Chris]

The statement in Revelation isn't talking about the canon of scriptures.

Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book [REVELATION], If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy [REVELATION], God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book [REVELATION]."

It speaks of the book of revelation, but where did the book of revelation come from? The Bible wasn't one solid book, but a series of individual texts loosely associated as the compendium for the Christian faith. Yet the book of revelation was added to the Bible, so someone added to the book, that being, the rest of the Bible.

J.

No. You aren't supposed to add words to Revelation, not the canon of the Bible. **sigh**

 

[Thestral]

Thank you.
There's more to it than that, but at least what I said has been acknowledged instead of ignored.

Brent, which one did God inspire?
The Catholic Bible of 73 books?
The Protestant Bible of 66 books?

The Masoretic texts or the Septuagint?

The Apocrypha? They were around until 1820 and *poof* they were gone. I guess God got tired of reading them. Right?
I mean, we're talking as if God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates. I guess they made a few mistakes. You'd think God would have caught that, but I digress.

Not directed at me, but... Continuing Revelation re: the Canon? Also, different specifics for different people?

If it is continuing revelation, then Protestants have changed the book of Revelation as it commands that no one add to or take away from the Bible, yet someone did. Many someones, and after the Council had declared canon of the first texts.

J.

Meh, I'm fine with that. Accepted canon's also pretty clear on the role of women in ministry, and if continuing revelation allows us to clarify that, why not the end of Revelation? I wouldn't advocate being blithe about adding to or taking away from (and adding to especially is dangerous at best), but clearly it has been and continues to be done.

 

[Michael Chris]

What? The Council was formed to define Church doctrine. It has everything to do with the canon of the Bible.


J.

Not at all. Show me a source that remotely indicates that. The council of Nicaea was about the beliefs of the Arians.

 

[Amaris]

No. You aren't supposed to add words to Revelation, not the canon of the Bible. **sigh**

That's what I'm saying. Look; the book of revelation was written by itself. It was not to be added to and nothing taken away. However, an entire foundational doctrine was attached to it and made into a whole. It became part of a greater doctrine. Now whether you like it or not, that's adding to the book.

Meh, I'm fine with that. Accepted canon's also pretty clear on the role of women in ministry, and if continuing revelation allows us to clarify that, why not the end of Revelation? I wouldn't advocate being blithe about adding to or taking away from (and adding to especially is dangerous at best), but clearly it has been and continues to be done.

That's my problem with it. You are correct that things will continue to be added to it over time. It will continue.

J.

 

[DonIago]

I'd still like to reconcile how an omnipotent and presumably omnibenevolent god would allow people to be possessed by demons...is there some sort of higher purpose involved in allowing those people to be corrupted?

But hey, I was raised Jewish...I'd still like to know what the point of the Holocaust was. Perhaps punishing us for our false beliefs?

 

[Amaris]

What? The Council was formed to define Church doctrine. It has everything to do with the canon of the Bible.


J.

Not at all. Show me a source that remotely indicates that. The council of Nicaea was about the beliefs of the Arians.

The Arian controvery was but one reason why the Council convened.

Just an example:

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[7] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[8] The writings and teachings of early church fathers presented even greater challenges for the Church in defining exactly what was considered the heretical theology prior to the First Council of Nicaea. Early Christian apologist Justin Martyr clearly presented his earlier teachings on the logos (Jesus relationship to Father) in the Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogue with Trypho, 56). The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.

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

The Council also wrote the "Nicaean Creed" and established as the official ecumenical doctrine of the Church. The creed is as follows:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Another example:

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C.H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Other matters dealt with by this council were the controversy as to the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism. The former of these two will be found treated under EASTER CONTROVERSY; the latter under MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS.

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today. Of these the following is a brief résumé:

• Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
• Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
• Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
• Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
• Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
• Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
• Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
• Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
• Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
• Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
• Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
• Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
• Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
• Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
• Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
• Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
• Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
• Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
• Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

The business of the Council having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

Link to the Reference article

They sure did establish a lot of canon for not establishing any canon of the church!

I'd still like to reconcile how an omnipotent and presumably omnibenevolent god would allow people to be possessed by demons...is there some sort of higher purpose involved in allowing those people to be corrupted?

But hey, I was raised Jewish...I'd still like to know what the point of the Holocaust was. Perhaps punishing us for our false beliefs?

There is no real reason. The standard reply is "It's your fault, not God's." There is no good reason, and there's no just reason for it. It makes no sense up against doctrine, and it definitely did not originate from Judaism, we know that much.

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

That's what I'm saying. Look; the book of revelation was written by itself. It was not to be added to and nothing taken away. However, an entire foundational doctrine was attached to it and made into a whole. It became part of a greater doctrine. Now whether you like it or not, that's adding to the book.

No. The Bible is NOT a singular book. The statement in Revelation is talking about adding things within the Book of Revelation. Not putting other books on the same shelf.

Also, let's get this clear: The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with creating the canon. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nada.