Council of Nicaea / Arius / Constantine and the Bible (page 3)

merfi

Apparently Constantine asked Eusebius to provide for a number of normative "Bibles," which was just one step in the canon's settlement.

This is what I've found also. In just a single website (as I've only started looking into this) it mentioned that Eusebius was commisioned by Constantine to print 50 bibles. So he decided what was in those 50 (pretty much what books had been decided up until then, I think). I've read that the OT Apocrypha was excluded and that there was some discussion about 2 Pet, Hebrews, the Johns, Jude and Revelation being included in the NT.

What started me thinking about this wasn't Dan Brown, either (although I've read DVC twice ). I'm still a "babe" in this world outside of JWville, so now that I've allowed myself to question, I question EVERYthing, down to the basics like the Bible. I'm at a loss on what to really believe anymore, so simply doing lots of research all over the place. My thoughts about the Bible right now is that if there are some books left out, then are there some that shouldn't be IN? And why should I base my life, faith, beliefs on something that isn't complete or completely true...?

~merfi, of the Hugely Skeptical and Cynical Class :)

MissBehave

Very interesting Narkissos, thanks for those links. Those are two I had not come across.

And merfi, that was what I tried to say at the very beginning (and wow did this thread lead WAY OVER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THERE) if there are books thatdidn't make the cut...what did they say? How do we know they weren't more important? And like you said, what if there is stuff in there that shouldn't be? Can I say in my heart anymore that I think it's inspired or accurate? Unfortunately, no. I just don't feel it.

And whether it was Constantine (no one slap me down for bringing him up again) or some other guy or group of guys, who says they were inspired by god. This wasn't done by Jesus or his apostles. It was many many years later, right?

And another thing I mentioned in the first post, is what the JW take on the actual compilation of the bible. I haven't had access to WT literature in many years, so I'm curious...they say the men that wrote the bible were inspired by god if I remember correctly....so do they also think that the dudes who pulled it together into one tidy little book inspired too?

greendawn

Merfi you are doing the right thing questioning everything that's the way it should be, eventually ideas will crystallise out in your mind. Have in mind though that there was no printing back in those days, Bibles had to be written by hand, it was to be another 1000 years before Gutenberg invented printing.

barry

The real issue at Nicea was not the Arian contravercy although Arias provided a catalist in the debaite . Monacanism was also at issue at Nicea but it also was only a catalist in the debate. Monarchism is the beleif that the trinity exists as father son and holy spirit much the same as I as a man am also a father and also and other role I may have in society.

The debate at Nicea was between the Niceans and the Oregonists. The oregonists beleived God to be at different levels and it seemed to the niceans that they were teaching Arianism while the Niceans less clearly defined the threeness of god and so to the Oregonists seemed to be teaching Monarchism.

I have a little book called "Christian Thought ' by Tony Lane. Barry

merfi

so do they also think that the dudes who pulled it together into one tidy little book inspired too?

EXACTLY!! Who says these are all the correct books...

I'll have to check out the JW views on the compilation -- haven't ever done that, I don't think, just always believed what I was told to believe about it.

This is kinda interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

~merfi

Check_Your_Premises

If the New Testament is read naturally it will become obvious that the early Christians had a view on this issue and it was a Son subordinated to the Father.

Actually, as I understand it, the trinity doctrine does not deny the subordinate role of Christ. Rather it makes Jehovah and Jesus equal in the sense that they are of the same "divine substance". Just as a woman and man are equally human, yet the woman is given a subordinate role in a Christian marriage.

Three seperate minds sharing a single divine essence.

I am not saying that makes sense to me or anything. I am just trying to clarify the doctrine as I understand it.

CYP

Sad emo

Justin's reply is the closest to what is written in my theology books (saves me repeating it all!).

The books of the NT were decided not in a single event but by looking at general concensus between the Christian communities as to which were being used by most for teaching. The four Gospels had been accepted by the 2nd century (according to Justin) as well as Paul's letters (Irenaeus of Lyon), and by Origen's time, most of the NT was accepted - the only ones disputed were 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, James and Jude.

Our complete NT was announced in the 39th Festal letter of Athanasius in 367 (but a few letters were still disputed long after - even Martin Luther disputed the letter of James)

As for the timescale between the earliest documents and Jesus' death, all I can say is the usual patter about it being less than the timescale for people such as Julius Caesar... and we don't doubt those documents about his life .. blah, blah, etc. I say to that reasoning, it sounds fair enough but one can either take it or leave it!

Justin

It seems I've confused Athanasius with Eusebius. Eusebius was commissioned to provide 50 copies of the Bible, but it was Athanasius who first listed the books as we have them today. And the Justin who is cited by Sad Emo from the second century was Justin Martyr, not me!

As for the Society's approach to the compilation of the Bible, when they have attempted an explanation they have quoted from early Church Fathers (such as Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc.) who quoted the books as Scripture. They have relied on Church tradition! Other than than, they have also used circular reasoning by saying, in effect, that one book of the Bible refers to another, and vice versa, so that the books verify each other. This has always been a weakness in WT theology - it begins with a Bible (which is shown by certain "proofs" to be inspired) with little concern as to how we got the Bible.

startingover

In reading the posts on this thread, it hit me that this discussion would take a different tone if one thing were different. Most of us were raised in a Christian nation, and therefore were taught from infancy that there is a god, and his word is in the bible. Take that prejudice away and look again.

Imagine this group having a discussion centered about the Hindu Vedas.

The day you begin to look at the bible as a piece of literature instead of the word of god, things look so different.

inquirer

MissBehave

bible at the Council of Nicaea. As well as the ousting of Arius because of his
"controversial" beliefs. It's been many years since I've read any Watchtower
literature...anyone know what the JW's believe / teach / preach regarding this
subject.

by a council of men in the 4th century under the direction of the first
Christian Roman Emperor, that makes me have doubts that I never had before.

mainstream...such as that the trinity was bogus. So he was deemed a heretic and
his works were destroyed. And nothing was included in the "bible" that supported
his version. And what about all the other books that were voted out that didn't
make the final cut. What did those say?

________________

LONG LIVE ARIUS!

Council of Nicaea / Arius / Constantine and the Bible

Share this