Why we can never take the Bible seriously - Council of Nicaea

[Kais]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century. In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a Christian council at Nicaea. They decided the composition of what was to go in the Bible. Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected). There are actually 20 gospels (each of the apostles wrote one, and there's more), but the 4 that are used were decided by popular vote, as was the concept of Jesus and God as the same being. 'The Word of God' came down to a vote.

If that's not enough, at that time there were many small sects of Christianity(it was a mixture of Catholicism and Orthodoxy back then), but they all pledged allegiance to the Pope and the Roman Emperor. Then one sect refused to do so. They were excommunicated. They were called 'The Light-Bearers', or in Latin, 'The Luciferians'. Lo and behold, the Bible is revised to say Lucifer was the devil's name. It's about the most obvious edit to the Bible - A Latin name in a Hebrew text?

[ReasonIsOutToLunch]

How odd, it seems another figure in myth was punished for bringing light to humans. But, I guess calling the light bearers, Prometians would have been more obviously taken from myth.

[Nick]

So the Catholics decided what would be in the bible...yet many say Catholics are not true Christians because they don't follow the bible.  Protestants are strange Christians.

[Kais]

So the Catholics decided what would be in the bible...yet many say Catholics are not true Christians because they don't follow the bible.  Protestants are strange Christians.

Sort of a Catholic-Orthodox mix, but yeah.

[Count Iblis]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century. In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a Christian council at Nicaea. They decided the composition of what was to go in the Bible. Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected).

It's not quite that simple. If you look at the prophecies that Jesus allegedly fulfilled few, if any, are actually Messianic prophecies (e.g. the "virgin" birth prophecy has nothing to do with the Messiah). If the gospel authors were going to make up stories about Jesus to make him look like the Messiah, why didn't they use actual Messianic prophecies?

The gospels make much more sense if they were written as allegories. Michael Turton has analyzed the Gospel of Mark and found some rather interesting patterns as far as why certain OT passages were used to describe Jesus and things that he did.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

[archaeologist]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century. In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a Christian council at Nicaea. They decided the composition of what was to go in the Bible. Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected). There are actually 20 gospels (each of the apostles wrote one, and there's more), but the 4 that are used were decided by popular vote, as was the concept of Jesus and God as the same being. 'The Word of God' came down to a vote.

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

[jetson]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century. In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a Christian council at Nicaea. They decided the composition of what was to go in the Bible. Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected). There are actually 20 gospels (each of the apostles wrote one, and there's more), but the 4 that are used were decided by popular vote, as was the concept of Jesus and God as the same being. 'The Word of God' came down to a vote.

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

Yeah, you do that.  And please provide some evidence to support whatever you post.  Otherwise your refutation will be rightfully ignored.

[Nick]

Simple answer...The council of Nicaea was inspired by God.  His hand was on those who made decisions.  Once again making sure the bible is true and pure. (except for the parts that are not).

[JesusHChrist]

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

Which part is wrong?

[Blaziken_rjcf]

dont bother, archaeologist is in the ER and is going to be banned in a short while for not following staff's instructions and wanting them to follow his instructions

[Nick]

So I guess we will never know the answer.

[JesusYourLord]

I'm guessing that the council of Nicaea never happened and is just an atheist conspiracy to discredit the Bible.

I've heard Christians make that very claim about the Inquisition and the Witch hunts. 

[screwtape]

Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected).

What do you mean?  If the Nicea was 325 CE, how could they edit out parts that supported mohammed?  He would not be born for another 250 years. 

[Kais]

Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected).

What do you mean?  If the Nicea was 325 CE, how could they edit out parts that supported mohammed?  He would not be born for another 250 years. 

Not that necessarily supported Mohammed, just that were obviously not prophesising Jesus. Also, Nicaea wasn't the last time stuff was edited.

[screwtape]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  It looks like someone randomly selected words from a book on the history of religion.

[Kais]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  It looks like someone randomly selected words from a book on the history of religion.

The point is the prophecies were incredibly vague before Nicaea, and some Muslims apply them to Mohammed. But at Nicaea the Bible was made more exact to favour Jesus. There had been plenty of other people who claimed to be the Messiah throughout history.

[screwtape]

I reread your OP.  the part that was tripping me up was this:

(Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out

When I originally read it, it sounded to me that you were saying the writings were edited at Nicea specifically to preclude mohammed as a messiah.  Which was why I asked my question originally.  It now looks like you are saying muslims claim the bible in its original form pointed to mohammed as being the messiah, and  they claim the bible was erroneously edited in a way that instead points to jesus H or at least less to mohammy.  Is that correct?

[penfold]

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

Yeah, you do that.  And please provide some evidence to support whatever you post.  Otherwise your refutation will be rightfully ignored.

Much as I hate to side with Archaeologist, he is correct. Nicea was not a council dealing with canon, rather it lead to a creedal formulation regarding the identity of Jesus (I've posted on the church councils before, if anyone is interested http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=13123.0).

In fact canonisation did not occur at any particular council but was a gradual process (see L McDonald The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995 & A Patzia The Making of the New Testament Downers Grove: IVP, 1995).

It is true that there are canonical statements at some councils (most notably the Council of Trent in 1546CE), but there is no definitive birthplace of the bible. Like all good things it evolved.

NB I do, however, absolutely agree with the OP's original point that we should not trust the bible in that it is a particular selection of few texts out of many possible ones. There is a great selection of heretical gospels found at Nag Hammadi which did not make the cut, a good translation is found in B Layton Gnostic Scriptures SMC Press, 1987.

ps Mohammed is considered the last prophet by Muslims, not the messiah.

[jetson]

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

Yeah, you do that.  And please provide some evidence to support whatever you post.  Otherwise your refutation will be rightfully ignored.

Much as I hate to side with Archaeologist, he is correct. Nicea was not a council dealing with canon, rather it lead to a creedal formulation regarding the identity of Jesus (I've posted on the church councils before, if anyone is interested http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=13123.0).

In fact canonisation did not occur at any particular council but was a gradual process (see L McDonald The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995 & A Patzia The Making of the New Testament Downers Grove: IVP, 1995).

It is true that there are canonical statements at some councils (most notably the Council of Trent in 1546CE), but there is no definitive birthplace of the bible. Like all good things it evolved.

NB I do, however, absolutely agree with the OP's original point that we should not trust the bible in that it is a particular selection of few texts out of many possible ones. There is a great selection of heretical gospels found at Nag Hammadi which did not make the cut, a good translation is found in B Layton Gnostic Scriptures SMC Press, 1987.

ps Mohammed is considered the last prophet by Muslims, not the messiah.

My comment is still valid.  Evidence, or no specific claim can be made.

[kardula]

this is just wrong and i will post more this evening when i return from work.

Yeah, you do that.  And please provide some evidence to support whatever you post.  Otherwise your refutation will be rightfully ignored.

Much as I hate to side with Archaeologist, he is correct. Nicea was not a council dealing with canon, rather it lead to a creedal formulation regarding the identity of Jesus (I've posted on the church councils before, if anyone is interested http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=13123.0).

In fact canonisation did not occur at any particular council but was a gradual process (see L McDonald The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995 & A Patzia The Making of the New Testament Downers Grove: IVP, 1995).

It is true that there are canonical statements at some councils (most notably the Council of Trent in 1546CE), but there is no definitive birthplace of the bible. Like all good things it evolved.

NB I do, however, absolutely agree with the OP's original point that we should not trust the bible in that it is a particular selection of few texts out of many possible ones. There is a great selection of heretical gospels found at Nag Hammadi which did not make the cut, a good translation is found in B Layton Gnostic Scriptures SMC Press, 1987.

ps Mohammed is considered the last prophet by Muslims, not the messiah.

My comment is still valid.  Evidence, or no specific claim can be made.

Evidence that the council at nicea was about jesus' identity and not canon can be found in the history channel's Banned From the Bible...here's the first part on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3D28Ys-dp4

[Dominic]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century. In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a Christian council at Nicaea. They decided the composition of what was to go in the Bible. Much of the OT texts were edited so the prophecies of the Messiah could not be questioned to be Jesus (Muslims claim Mohammed was the Messiah and the prophecies that support him were edited out -  he fits the soldier type figure that most Jews expected). There are actually 20 gospels (each of the apostles wrote one, and there's more), but the 4 that are used were decided by popular vote, as was the concept of Jesus and God as the same being. 'The Word of God' came down to a vote.

If that's not enough, at that time there were many small sects of Christianity(it was a mixture of Catholicism and Orthodoxy back then), but they all pledged allegiance to the Pope and the Roman Emperor. Then one sect refused to do so. They were excommunicated. They were called 'The Light-Bearers', or in Latin, 'The Luciferians'. Lo and behold, the Bible is revised to say Lucifer was the devil's name. It's about the most obvious edit to the Bible - A Latin name in a Hebrew text?

What happened to the Luciferians ?

[jedweber]

The Bible as we have it today did not exist until the 4th Century...

That may technically be true, but it's misleading. The NT canon was largely in its present form by the end of the 2nd century. By that time we have church fathers like Irenaeus insisting on the same four gospels we have today (and only those gospels). The only documents that were really in play were some disputed epistles (some ended up going in, and some were excluded) and marginal stories like the Shepard of Hermas (out). Most of the "gnostic gospels" (excluding Thomas) were written late, used only by the sects that created them, and never had any chance of being accepted by the orthodox church.

If that's not enough, at that time there were many small sects of Christianity(it was a mixture of Catholicism and Orthodoxy back then), but they all pledged allegiance to the Pope and the Roman Emperor. Then one sect refused to do so. They were excommunicated. They were called 'The Light-Bearers', or in Latin, 'The Luciferians'. Lo and behold, the Bible is revised to say Lucifer was the devil's name. It's about the most obvious edit to the Bible - A Latin name in a Hebrew text?

This seems like an odd take on the story. First off, there were lots of "heretical" sects (gnostic, Marcionite, Jewish-Christian, etc.) that never "pledged allegiance" to the Roman church and struggled on until they were driven underground and disappeared. This Lucifer you mention was actually a bishop of the Catholic church who was a vehement opponent of the Arians, who were strong at that time. The Arians were later declared heretics, so Bishop Lucifer was actually a defender of orthodoxy and was somewhat vindicated by later events. (He is venerated as a saint in Italy.)

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

[Nam]

So the Catholics decided what would be in the bible...yet many say Catholics are not true Christians because they don't follow the bible.  Protestants are strange Christians.

As my 68 year old cousin once said (yes, I had[1] a cousin that old, 3rd cousin, to be exacting): I feel sorry for Catholics. They don't believe in [Bible]God the right way. They're going to hell. [paraphrased]

She's a Southern Baptist. 'Cause, only Southern Baptists are the True Christians.

-Nam

1.	forgot she died, my bad.

[jedweber]

^ So who does she think Baptists got their precious Bible from?

[penfold]

My comment is still valid.  Evidence, or no specific claim can be made.

Well I pointed you to two books on the topic of canonisation. Both written by academic historians.

In fact it is easy to show that Nicea was non canonical. The following is the whole agreed text from Nicea:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Panties Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nowhere is canon even mentioned. Actually I really wonder where the idea that Nicea was canonical came from. In Historical terms there is absolutely no evidence for this claim.

So my question is, where is your evidence for the positive claim that Nicea was, in any way, canonical?

[Nam]

^ So who does she think Baptists got their precious Bible from?

I can't ask her, she died a couple of years ago; or I would.  I keep seeing these bumper stickers that say: If it ain't King James Bible, it ain't Bible! -- with a little Southern Baptist symbol in the corner. Though, I'm sure other sects claim it, too.

-Nam

[jetson]

Ya know, Council or not, the very real problem of unknown authorship, unknown origins, and unknown original script, along with the very obvious fact that this "book from God" was not in any way a collaboration among authors, but rather, a pile of independent writings, to independent audiences, over very long periods of time (especially when you consider OT-NT combined), is enough to condemn it to historical mythology, mixed with some possible reality.

Any god worth a damn would have had a far better mechanism for making sure all humans, over all time, would know and understand the book (if it even needed to be a book, which is doubtful, since not all humans can read, nor should they have to.)  It is patently arrogant and perfectly ridiculous for any serious scholar to consider the absolute FAIL of those who want to make their unfounded claims that The Bible is a book from a real god (inspired or directly written.)

The entire thing is so far out of touch with reality, it's laughable.

Now, given that modern humans seem to think it is important, and given that it has survived and evolved into an entire series of SPAGGED versions, one to fit just about every flavor of believer, it is probably important for people to at least know what it contains, and understand it from a "critical historic" perspective (Ehrman).  This way, we can put it where it rightly belongs, as another mythological set of writings and stories, from a time when humans were unaware of their place in the world, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe.

The more I think about it, the more it makes more sense that had it not been for the god character it claims to be inspired from, and the hordes of deluded humans who think it is a real god, the book would have been extremely unimportant as anything but ancient writings, none of which we take seriously outside of museum circles.