Gay Exorcism!?!?!

[Michael Chris]

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

J.

Trying to squirm away. They established canons (statements regarding faith), not the canon of the Bible (the books of the Bible). They are in no way related.

You said: "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."

The Council of Nicaea did not choose any books. Did not establish the canon of the Bible. Did not remove books of the Bible. It in fact had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.

 

[RoJoHen]

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.

Just inserting my two cents before I head off to work. You keep saying it has nothing to do with it. J. Allen keeps saying it does. Only one of you has made an effort to provide evidence to support your statement, and that person is not you.

I know nothing on the subject, but I'm enjoying reading this debate. If you could provide evidence to support your claims instead of simply declaring them the truth, it would go a long way to helping your argument.

 

[lonesomechild]

OK. The Devil and his minions. In the Jewish tradition, and here I am going to be horribly arrogant and say that this is the one I hold to be closest to accurate, there is no such thing as the "war between heaven and hell." The Lucifer of Christian tradition is, as far as I can tell, analogous to the angel Sama-l, who is sometimes identified as the "evil inclination." He is not himself evil, he is, roughly speaking, H's agent, and a piece of H, the same way that every human, tree, animal, etc., also is a piece of H.

The text in Shmuel says that a "ruach ra" overcame Shaul haMelech, and he was incited to kill Dovid (I don't have it in front of me, or I'd cite it, sorry). Rashi says that the "ruach ra" was a divinely negative influence, or demon, to which Shaul opened himself through the chait of jealousy. His "possession" was a natural consequence of his own spiritual violence. Rashi also points out that Shaul died having committed only two sins: jealousy and failure to annihilate Ammhalek.

The holocaust. No one knows why the holocaust was allowed to happen. I have heard holy rabbanim say that the holocaust happened to remind the Jews to keep ourselves separate and kadosh. And it is a historical fact that holocausts (granted not before on this scale) tend to happen at the height of Jewish assimilation. Either way, it doesn't mean that H isn't benevolent and loving. The mishlei says "he who doesn't discipline his child, hates his child."

The holocaust.

 

[Amaris]

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.

The Bible. It is considered the inspired and authoritative Word of God, infallible. Are you going to tell me that by including those books with the Book of Revelation, combining them into one authoritative tome and calling the whole work "infallible", does nothing to add to the Book of Revelation? Because unless I can remove books from the Bible as I please and not affect it's inspired authority, then it's considered one authoritative work regardless of how many books sit on the 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.

As clear as mud.

EDITED TO ADD:

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

J.

Trying to squirm away. They established canons (statements regarding faith), not the canon of the Bible (the books of the Bible). They are in no way related.

You said: "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."

The Council of Nicaea did not choose any books. Did not establish the canon of the Bible. Did not remove books of the Bible. It in fact had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.

Squirm away? Buddy, I'm the only one here citing references and backing up my point. Learn the definition of "squirm away".

You state the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with canon, yet they established the groundwork of the church and it's basic canon via the Nicene Creed. Also, an article from Encyclopedia.com says:

First Council of Nicaea 325, 1st ecumenical council, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great to solve the problems raised by Arianism . It has been said that 318 persons attended, but a more likely number is 225, including every Eastern bishop of importance, four Western bishops (among them Hosius of Córdoba, president of the council), and two papal legates. The chief figures at the council were Arius and his opponent, Athanasius . The council adopted, as a test of faith, a formula that seems to have been based on a simple baptismal creed presented possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea; this was not, however, the creed generally circulated today as the Nicene Creed (see creed ). The formula included the Greek word homoousion [consubstantial], which was used concerning the Son and the Father. The word, suggested probably by Hosius, became the touchstone of orthodoxy and the bugbear of Arianism, for it established the divinity and the equality of the Son to the Father. The creed was accepted by all the bishops except two, who were banished along with Arius to Illyricum. The council ruled on other questions as well, attempting to standardize the date of Easter and granting patriarchal authority to the bishop of Alexandria. The First Council of Nicaea was significant as the model and the original of great councils. The test it adopted provided a universal statement of faith in place of the earlier and varying baptismal formulas.

Sounds to me like they were setting up the Church's doctrinal foundations to me. I'm sure the two banished members who disagreed found that rather evident as well.

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

All right. Since the idea that the Council of Nicaea chose the canon is new, I'll just quote some websites:

"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."

That's a very good website with many ancient references.

Here's one from a Catholic encyclopedia regarding the Council of Nicaea. No references are made to the canon of the Bible.

The Council that "decided" the canon of the Bible was one in Carthage later. However, there have been lists of canons with the books of the Bible in them back to the 2nd century. I readily acknowledge there were a very few disputed books. However, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with it.

 

[Michael Chris]

You state the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with canon, yet they established the groundwork of the church and it's basic canon via the Nicene Creed.

J.

I do not deny that it reinforced the existing views of the church, but that is not what we were talking about when were talking about the canon of the Bible.

So you acknowledge that the Nicene Council did not pick which books were in the Bible?

 

[Amaris]

All right. Since the idea that the Council of Nicaea chose the canon is new, I'll just quote some websites:

"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."

That's a very good website with many ancient references.

Here's one from a Catholic encyclopedia regarding the Council of Nicaea. No references are made to the canon of the Bible.

The Council that "decided" the canon of the Bible was one in Carthage later. However, there have been lists of canons with the books of the Bible in them back to the 2nd century. I readily acknowledge there were a very few disputed books. However, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with it.

The Nicene Council laid down the groundwork for what would become the official Canon of the Christian Church. The actual texts were convened upon later by the Council of Laodicea and the Council of Carthage. You seem to think I'm saying the Council of Nicaea put the books together, and I'm not. I'm saying they laid down canon for the future church.

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

Glad you did some reading. However, to quote you: "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."

Also, there were lists of canon far before the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Amaris]

You state the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with canon, yet they established the groundwork of the church and it's basic canon via the Nicene Creed.

J.

I do not deny that it reinforced the existing views of the church, but that is not what we were talking about when were talking about the canon of the Bible.

So you acknowledge that the Nicene Council did not pick which books were in the Bible?

Read my previous post. I never said they picked the books, I said they laid down canon, but I do believe the canon they laid down affected the selection process. As for the Council itself, yes, I did confuse it with the Council of Laodicea and the Council of Carthage, but it still does not change that the Bible has been modified, which is what this ENTIRE debate was about. So thank you for pulling out all that information to show how the Bible had been put together. Through example, you have helped make my point.

Edited to add:

Yes, I know there were texts before the council convened, but there were hundreds if not thousands of texts floating around. Jesus also wasn't the only Jesus of His day. None of this occurred in a vacuum.

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

The canon of the Bible predated both Councils you mentioned. It just wasn't official.

"I never said they picked the books"

vs.

"... God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them [using the rules of pronouns it can only be assumed you meant the Council of Nicaea] to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates."

Also, there weren't thousands. There were hundreds of books that never gained any kind of following, but the main books were the ones currently in the New Testament as well as the ones I mentioned before: The Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, The Didache, and Barbaras.

 

[Amaris]

The canon of the Bible predated both Councils you mentioned. It just wasn't official.

So no one could completely agree yet on God's infallible, inspired Word?
Don't you find that the least bit interesting?

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

The canon of the Bible predated both Councils you mentioned. It just wasn't official.

So no one could completely agree yet on God's infallible, inspired Word?
Don't you find that the least bit interesting?

J.

Many could agree on God's infallible, inspired Word. It just wasn't officially determined. It's kind of like how English is not the US' official language: it's not official but most people use English.

 

[Amaris]

The canon of the Bible predated both Councils you mentioned. It just wasn't official.

So no one could completely agree yet on God's infallible, inspired Word?
Don't you find that the least bit interesting?

J.

Many could agree on God's infallible, inspired Word. It just wasn't officially determined. It's kind of like how English is not the US' official language: it's not official but most people use English.

It wasn't officially determined? So it was up to people to determine the authoritative works of the Bible? Wow, even God has to go through committee.

J.

 

[DeafPoet]

The fact that it's possible to have such an involved debate on the origins of the canon make it seem to me that it's not strictly "God's word handed down from on high" and more politics than anything else.

I just think it's intellectually dishonest not to allow for the possibility that it's all been fabricated. Much as it pains me to say so, as a rational person I have to allow for the possibility that it's all true. Why does it seldom go both ways with Christians?

 

[Michael Chris]

The fact that it's possible to have such an involved debate on the origins of the canon make it seem to me that it's not strictly "God's word handed down from on high" and more politics than anything else.

You could get into a debate about cheese if there is one person who doesn't know anything about cheese but thinks they do.

 

[Amaris]

The canon of the Bible predated both Councils you mentioned. It just wasn't official.

"I never said they picked the books"

vs.

"... God spoke to the Council of Nicea and guided them [using the rules of pronouns it can only be assumed you meant the Council of Nicaea] to picking the correct books out of thousands of candidates."

Also, there weren't thousands. There were hundreds of books that never gained any kind of following, but the main books were the ones currently in the New Testament as well as the ones I mentioned before: The Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, The Didache, and Barbaras.

To quickly address this once more: I already told you I made a mistake by saying the Council of Nicaea when it was the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage. I confused them.

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

Cool. What about the number of books?

It wasn't officially determined? So it was up to people to determine the authoritative works of the Bible?

Well, if God didn't tell us and the elephants kept quiet then I think that mostly leaves people.

 

[DeafPoet]

The fact that it's possible to have such an involved debate on the origins of the canon make it seem to me that it's not strictly "God's word handed down from on high" and more politics than anything else.

You could get into a debate about cheese if there is one person who doesn't know anything about cheese but thinks they do.

Man, I'm no biblical scholar in the least, but it's pretty clear there was some mortal debate as to what is and what is not the word of god. The fact that there were councils deciding this shit doesn't seem the least bit weird to you?

 

[Amaris]

It wasn't officially determined? So it was up to people to determine the authoritative works of the Bible?

Well, if God didn't tell us and the elephants kept quiet then I think that mostly leave people.

So people got to say what is and is not officially authoritative?

J.

 

[Michael Chris]

Man, I'm no biblical scholar in the least, but it's pretty clear there was some mortal debate as to what is and what is not the word of god. The fact that there were councils deciding this shit doesn't seem the least bit weird to you?

Not really. There was some dispute about a few books, that's true. The Councils were basically just saying what was already widely accepted.