Nicaea and Scripture Canon [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Nicaea and Scripture Canon


WS6
04-21-2012, 12:44
From another thread:

The first and second Councils of Nicaea laid the ground work for which books would eventually be accepted as "inspired" and which would not. This ground work would eventually be codified by the Council of Trent in 1546.

Cite those specific canons of the three councils, which support your assertions.


Do you dispute the fact that the Council of Nicaea exluded works that ran contrary to the elements of the Nicene Creed?

Answer your own assertions. What works were excluded?

Geko45
04-21-2012, 13:54
I've already given you wiki links to books excluded from canon. You need me to spoon feed it to you as well? At what point do you take responsibility for researching what I cite? I just want to clear this up right now as I don't feel in the mood to be subjected to ever increasing standards of proof when you don't like what I've already provided.

WS6
04-21-2012, 14:13
I've already given you wiki links to books excluded from canon. You need me to spoon feed it to you as well? At what point do you take responsibility for researching what I cite?

So, in other words there are no specific council canons to support your assertions.

I just want to clear this up right now as I don't feel in the mood to be subjected to ever increasing standards of proof when you don't like what I've already provided.

Well, that's just too bad; I'm not in the mood to be subjected to your ever increasing lines of baloney with regard to my religion. So, stuff it.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 14:28
So, in other words there are no specific council canons to support your assertions.

What the heck are you even asking at this point? To provide canon as proof of what was not canon? Books were excluded, we know this for a fact.

Gnosticism believed christ was all god and not any part man as all things material were considered impure and evil and only the spiritual was pure and good. Therefore, christ had to be completely spiritual under this theology.

Arianism, on the other hand, contended that christ was not god incarnate, but some sort of subordinate being that was created by god for the very purpose of the crucifixion. It rejected the concept of god as a trinity with father, son and holy ghost all be equal components.

Both of these concepts were declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea and even Arius himself (Arius = Arianism) was exiled and the copies of his book, the Thalia, were ordered burned by Constatine.

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath)

The Thalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#The_Thalia)

Constantine is believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais—and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned.

There, happy now? A book that teaches that christ was not one with god that was ordered burned by Constatine at the Council of Nicaea.

Well, that's just too bad; I'm not in the mood to be subjected to your ever increasing lines of baloney with regard to my religion. So, stuff it.

So very mature. I am through debating with you. You have lost all credibility.

:upeyes:

WS6
04-21-2012, 15:49
So, in other words there are no specific council canons to support your assertions.

What the heck are you even asking at this point? To provide canon as proof of what was not canon?

Time out for definitions. From my Random House Dictionary:

canon, 1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other other competent i and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope. [ ] 5. the books of the Bible recognized as holy by any Christian church. 6. any officially recognized set of sacred books. [ ]

Keeping definition #1 in mind, quote that canon of the council that excluded books from the Christian canon (def. 5.) of scripture.

Books were excluded, we know this for a fact.

Gnosticism believed christ was all god and not any part man as all things material were considered impure and evil and only the spiritual was pure and good. Therefore, christ had to be completely spiritual under this theology.

Arianism, on the other hand, contended that christ was not god incarnate, but some sort of subordinate being that was created by god for the very purpose of the crucifixion. It rejected the concept of god as a trinity with father, son and holy ghost all be equal components.

Both of these concepts were declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea and even Arius himself (Arius = Arianism) was exiled and the copies of his book, the Thalia, were ordered burned by Constatine.

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath)

The Thalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#The_Thalia)



There, happy now? A book that teaches that christ was not one with god that was ordered burned by Constatine at the Council of Nicaea.

Considering the council canons found here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm), show where the council decreed anything with regard to Bible canon or book burning by the Emperor.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 16:26
Keeping definition #1 in mind, quote that canon of the council that excluded books from the Christian canon (def. 5.) of scripture.

:rofl:

Considering the council canons found here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm), show where the council decreed anything with regard to Bible canon or book burning by the Emperor.

You do realize that Constantine is the one that called the Council of Nica and literally sat on and oversaw the council, right? No, I suppose not, because you aren't even reading what I cite. He didn't particularly care which view won out. All he needed was a unified church for political reasons, but when the trinity view became the clear winner, he enforced this upon everyone.

Seriously, you show up here without even a rudimentary understanding of the history of your own faith. You provide nothing in support of your assertions and repeatedly demand people to "show you" and don't even bother reading what they post when they do. You don't even have the decency to concede a point when you've clearly lost it.

I'm through here, you've been "shown".

WS6
04-21-2012, 16:32
:rofl:



You do realize that Constantine is the one that called the Council of Nica and literally sat on and oversaw the council, right? No, I suppose not, because you aren't even reading what I cite. He didn't particularly care which view won out. All he needed was a unified church for political reasons, but when the trinity view became the clear winner, he enforced this upon everyone.

Seriously, you show up here without even a rudimentary understanding of the history of your own faith. You provide nothing in support of your assertions and repeatedly demand people to "show you" and don't even bother reading what they post when they do. You don't even have the decency to concede a point when you've clearly lost it.

I'm threw here, you've been "shown".

Threw?! Yes, you have definitely "shown" me.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 16:37
Threw?! Yes, you have definitely "shown" me.

Congratulations, you got the last "zing" in.

Lone Wolf8634
04-21-2012, 16:39
Congratulations, you got the last "zing" in.

:rofl::rofl:

SDGlock23
04-21-2012, 17:37
Uhhh I have a Bible with 80 books in it. And quite a few books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The 1611 KJV even had 80 books until the mid 1800's.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 18:00
Uhhh I have a Bible with 80 books in it. And quite a few books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The 1611 KJV even had 80 books until the mid 1800's.

Yeah, the apocrypha were considered worth reading, but not "canon" up until the late 19th century. The gnostic gospels were never included and neither was the thalia as they were considered heretical. So yeah, they have been monkeying around with the contents of the bible as recently as about 150 years ago.

And if you take into account the sudden explosion of modern english translations, it is still being monkeyed with.

WS6
04-23-2012, 11:52
Yeah, the apocrypha were considered worth reading, but not "canon" up until the late 19th century. [ ... ]

The Council of Florence (http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#5) (A.D. 1442), states otherwise, by listing the Deuterocanonicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books) as part of Scripture canon:

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:33
What the heck are you even asking at this point? To provide canon as proof of what was not canon? Books were excluded, we know this for a fact.

Gnosticism believed christ was all god and not any part man as all things material were considered impure and evil and only the spiritual was pure and good. Therefore, christ had to be completely spiritual under this theology.

Arianism, on the other hand, contended that christ was not god incarnate, but some sort of subordinate being that was created by god for the very purpose of the crucifixion. It rejected the concept of god as a trinity with father, son and holy ghost all be equal components.

Both of these concepts were declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea and even Arius himself (Arius = Arianism) was exiled and the copies of his book, the Thalia, were ordered burned by Constatine.

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath)

The Thalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#The_Thalia)



There, happy now? A book that teaches that christ was not one with god that was ordered burned by Constatine at the Council of Nicaea.



So very mature. I am through debating with you. You have lost all credibility.

:upeyes:


Was this thread the inspiration for your thread about intellectual dishonesty?:rofl:

I got to the second post and it seemed like it must be.

WS6
04-23-2012, 14:51
Was this thread the inspiration for your thread about intellectual dishonesty?:rofl:

I got to the second post and it seemed like it must be.

Well, considering the second post ...

I've already given you wiki links to books excluded from canon. You need me to spoon feed it to you as well? At what point do you take responsibility for researching what I cite? I just want to clear this up right now as I don't feel in the mood to be subjected to ever increasing standards of proof when you don't like what I've already provided.

... I must agree. http://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Schabesbert
04-23-2012, 15:52
Keeping definition #1 in mind, quote that canon of the council that excluded books from the Christian canon (def. 5.) of scripture.
:rofl:
You hit the wrong smiley. Here's the one that you should have used:
:embarassed:

Unless you're being intellectually dishonest. :wavey:

Seriously, you show up here without even a rudimentary understanding of the history of your own faith. You provide nothing in support of your assertions and repeatedly demand people to "show you" and don't even bother reading what they post when they do. You don't even have the decency to concede a point when you've clearly lost it.

I'm through here, you've been "shown".
You seem to be a reasonable man, but there's nothing in this thread that supports your contention, and you didn't even attempt to address WS6's challenge to your assertion.

Edited: Sorry, I didn't read post 4 closely enough.
However, assuming that this order did take place, it wasn't at the Council.