Questions on Nicaea and the bible

[dewaddict84]

So I've got a question about the authenticity of the bible. I was talking to a friend about what constitutes the core tenants of christianity, and he replied "pretty much everything in the nicaea creed". Well, ok, but then I researched that a bit and I was amazed.

This was a forum of a bunch of official dudes deciding what part of the bible they liked and what parts they didn't. It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress. They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.
They edited the bible.

How can the bible still be taken on faith? I kinda understand how people can have faith in the word of god, but I don't understand how people can have faith in the church. It's made of men and people have explained that all the ills of the world are because everyone is inherently sinful. If the church got rid of books and other early christian writings, then doesn't that put the bible in doubt? Not the text itself I guess, but the voids. How did they choose one book over another? and what all did they cut?

 

[ebia]

So I've got a question about the authenticity of the bible. I was talking to a friend about what constitutes the core tenants of christianity, and he replied "pretty much everything in the nicaea creed". Well, ok, but then I researched that a bit and I was amazed.

This was a forum of a bunch of official dudes deciding what part of the bible they liked and what parts they didn't. It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress. They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.
They edited the bible.

I'm not sure what research you have done, but the (so called) Nicene Creed isn't about editing the bible, was about putting together a formal statement of "What we believe". Truths that are (at least in theory) deducable from the bible.

As a summary of the Christian faith it has one good point - it's agreed to by all Christians. It's the only such statement of faith outside the bible itself. But it was never written to be a complete summary, just one that addressed certain points contraversial at the time.


All that was decided in practice way before the Council of Nicea. As well as the Hebrew Scriptures, they took the books that were being used widely by congregations - the books that were proving profitable. Despite what some fanciful authors would have people believe, there really wasn't much controvosy about the whole thing - it was a process of consensus. A small handful of books proved contraversial and took a while to hammer out either way - most of those that didn't make the cut were ones that weren't of apostolic authority.

People make out there are huge numbers of books that the church rejected, but the vast majority of those were written significantly later (well into the second century), were written by fringe groups, and/or are blatantly complete drivel. Or because they simply weren't fit for the purpose of use in public worship. Of the books that didn't make it, only a very small number were ever serious contenders - and those (like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas) are worth a read anyway. Despite what you may have read, they didn't go in for a lot of book burning - most of the decent books survived, the ones that didn't were lost because nobody wanted them (which is what happened to most human literature before the printing press).

What the councils did then was just to rubberstamp the list of books that had already been decided by consensus.

How can the bible still be taken on faith? I kinda understand how people can have faith in the word of god, but I don't understand how people can have faith in the church. It's made of men and people have explained that all the ills of the world are because everyone is inherently sinful. If the church got rid of books and other early christian writings, then doesn't that put the bible in doubt? Not the text itself I guess, but the voids. How did they choose one book over another? and what all did they cut?

The meta-narrative of the bible is one of God working through fallible people who make mistakes (first Israel, then the church) to achieve his infallible purpose.

It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress.

God's inspiration isn't usually "whispers from angels". God works through all sorts of groups of people and decision making methods - just read the Scriptures to see God's purpose being worked out through prophets, kings, judges, councils, consensus, votes, ... everything up to and including dice rolling.

They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.

And?

 

[dewaddict84]

All that was decided in practice way before the Council of Nicea.... What the councils did then was just to rubberstamp the list of books that had already been decided by consensus.

Well it certainly doesn't sound like that's what happened.

I kind of understand the idea that God works though the small coincidences, and the subtle changes. But to that end, why do anything at all if god is just going to manipulate it to his will anyway.

As for God working through politicians and votes, that's really scary! That means it's god's will which bailed out wallstreet. Or could be. The idea that God was working through Clinton at the end of his term seems absurd. And Wouldn't that sort of thinking give god complexes to politicians? I don't think their egos really need that sort of extra inflation.

They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.

And?

Well, that was just to show that the council was even more like a gathering of congress. Earmarks, concessions, and politics as usual. I guess I'm a little cynical of congress.


tcampen sums up my overall confusion on the trustworthiness of the bible quite well. But it's kinda lacking on answers. If you're saying there's reason to doubt, uh, doesn't that kinda hamper faith?

 

[Hentenza]

So I've got a question about the authenticity of the bible. I was talking to a friend about what constitutes the core tenants of christianity, and he replied "pretty much everything in the nicaea creed". Well, ok, but then I researched that a bit and I was amazed.

This was a forum of a bunch of official dudes deciding what part of the bible they liked and what parts they didn't. It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress. They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.
They edited the bible.

Your question to your friend is answered by the Nicene Creed, however, the creed is merely a summary of the Christian tenets and not all encompassing. The bible constitutes the revealed word of God. The creed is not inspired while the scriptures are.

How can the bible still be taken on faith? I kinda understand how people can have faith in the word of god, but I don't understand how people can have faith in the church. It's made of men and people have explained that all the ills of the world are because everyone is inherently sinful. If the church got rid of books and other early christian writings, then doesn't that put the bible in doubt? Not the text itself I guess, but the voids. How did they choose one book over another? and what all did they cut?

It is just like men to believe that they chose the books of the bible when in fact God did. The process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). By the time that the council made the canon official in the late 4th century the majority of the books of the NT had already been considered inspired and scripture.

 

[ebia]

Well it certainly doesn't sound like that's what happened.

In what way? Bear in mind there is an awful lot of misinformation and outright untruths out there with regard to canonisation out there.

I kind of understand the idea that God works though the small coincidences, and the subtle changes. But to that end, why do anything at all if god is just going to manipulate it to his will anyway.[/quote]
What you are asking now are much more fundamental questions that about Nicea.

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure what research you have done, but the (so called) Nicene Creed isn't about editing the bible, was about putting together a formal statement of "What we believe".

Indeed.

All that was decided in practice way before the Council of Nicea.

So it was. People were already treating the Gospels and Pauline Epistles as Scripture around 100 AD, if not earlier. From the earliest times, about 85% of the New Testament was agreed on by all Christians: the four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. The status of other books was debated until 367, for various reasons.

People make out there are huge numbers of books that the church rejected, but the vast majority of those were written significantly later (well into the second century), were written by fringe groups, and/or are blatantly complete drivel. Or because they simply weren't fit for the purpose of use in public worship. Of the books that didn't make it, only a very small number were ever serious contenders - and those (like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas) are worth a read anyway. Despite what you may have read, they didn't go in for a lot of book burning - most of the decent books survived, the ones that didn't were lost because nobody wanted them (which is what happened to most human literature before the printing press).

Exactly. People very early on were agreed that there were only 4 gospels, for example.

Nicea was mostly about the Arianism debate. After discussion, the assembled bishops (not politicians!) voted 313 to 5 to accept the Creed.

They also discussed standards for bishops, and whether Christians should pray kneeling or standing -- issues that arose with legalisation of Christianity and hence more travel by Christians around the Empire.

 

[packermann]

So I've got a question about the authenticity of the bible. I was talking to a friend about what constitutes the core tenants of christianity, and he replied "pretty much everything in the nicaea creed". Well, ok, but then I researched that a bit and I was amazed.

This was a forum of a bunch of official dudes deciding what part of the bible they liked and what parts they didn't. It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress. They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.
They edited the bible.

How can the bible still be taken on faith? I kinda understand how people can have faith in the word of god, but I don't understand how people can have faith in the church. It's made of men and people have explained that all the ills of the world are because everyone is inherently sinful. If the church got rid of books and other early christian writings, then doesn't that put the bible in doubt? Not the text itself I guess, but the voids. How did they choose one book over another? and what all did they cut?

You getting your Councils mixed up. The Nicene Council was done in AD 325. That had to deal mostly with the heresy Arianism, which said that Jesus had a beginning to his existence. I do not think it dealt with the Bible at all.

The canonization of the Bible happened under two different councils in that same century. They were guided by the Holy Spirit. This principle of the Holy Spirit guiding His truth to the Church as a whole was promised by Jesus Himself and a clear example of this is found in the earliest record of the New Testament Church (see Acts 15). Here the Church had its very first Council to determine whether Gentiles had to be circumcized in order to become Christians. When they wrote a decree to all churches, they wrote "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us ..." (Acts 15:28). They were concious of the fact that the decision came from the Holy Spirit.

These Councils may have some bitter fights, but through it all God is still sovreignl. His will is done. The Councils that determined the canonicity of the New Testament was also guided by the Holy Spirit and the traditions handed down to them.

And modern scholarship has validated the findings of these Councils. For instance, of the 20 gospels that these Councils had before them, they rejected all but four of them - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Only these four gospels did the Councils accept. Only in the 20th century has scholars been able to confirm the dates of these gospels. The only ones that were written in the first century were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (although some scholars may date John in the early second century). All the gospels rejected by the Councils are dated in mid second or third centuries, so they were clearly forgeries. So the Councils, without the advantage of modern scholarship, just relying on the Holy Spirit, selected the only gospels that could have been written by contemporaries of the events they were recording! This to me is an amazing validation that God was working through these Councils!

 

[dewaddict84]

Bear in mind there is an awful lot of misinformation and outright untruths out there with regard to canonisation out there.

Oye, you weren't kidding. So I'll accept that the first Nicaea council didn't cull religious books that didn't need culling. I still say they were politicians passing legislature though. I just don't see any sign of them actually being influenced by the holy spirit.

I find it endlessly sad that tcampen's post was taken down.

 

[ebia]

Oye, you weren't kidding. So I'll accept that the first Nicaea council didn't cull religious books that didn't need culling. I still say they were politicians passing legislature though.
I just don't see any sign of them actually being influenced by the holy spirit.

Those two are not an either/or. What signs of them being influenced by the holy spirit were you looking for.

If you don't 'buy' into the creeds written by the councils fine. But, as I said, the councils didn't decide the canon- they just rubber stamped what had already been worked out by the practice and consensus of the church. Ignore the rubber-stamp if you want - these are still the books used by the earliest church. Ignore the controversial inclusions if they bother you - you can get all you need to know from the central books that were never contested (the gospels, the letters of Paul and James).


To be honest you could get almost everything you need to know from the book of Philemon if you spent enough time on it.

 

[packermann]

Oye, you weren't kidding. So I'll accept that the first Nicaea council didn't cull religious books that didn't need culling. I still say they were politicians passing legislature though. I just don't see any sign of them actually being influenced by the holy spirit.

I find it endlessly sad that tcampen's post was taken down.

Please look at my previous post. I gave two signs that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit. Neither of them did you respond to:


1. The first Council was recorded by the book of Acts in the first century. The council itself say that it was guided by the Holy Spirit.


2. The Councils that did decide the canonization chose only 4 of the 20 gospels that were created in the first few centuries. Without any advantage of modern scholarship, the four they selected were the only one that werre written in the first century. 20th cenetury modern scholarship can attest that the other 16 gospels were written much later than the first century, so they were defintely forgeries. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas could not have been written by the Apostle Thomas since it was defintely not written in the first century.

That seems to me a very good sign that the Councils were led by the Holy Spririt by being able to detect which gospels were genuine without having the use of modern scholarship.

 

[Radagast]

2. The Councils that did decide the canonization chose only 4 of the 20 gospels that were created in the first few centuries. Without any advantage of modern scholarship, the four they selected were the only one that werre written in the first century.

I have to disagree with packermann. No council "chose" the gospels. The 4 canonical gospels were the only ones in the early Church, and they were simply handed down. Those 4 gospels are the ones quoted by early Christian writers; St Irenaeus around 180 says there are only 4, and names them; so does the author of the Muratorian Canon. Later Eusebius says the same thing in his Church History, quoting earlier writers. There was no debate over Acts and the Pauline Epistles either.

 

[dewaddict84]

Wasn't aware you really wanted answers.

1. The first Council was recorded by the book of Acts in the first century. The council itself say that it was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Ha, and John Smith found golden plates under a hill. It's a matter of trust and evidence.

2. The Councils that did decide the canonization chose only 4 of the 20 gospels that were created in the first few centuries. Without any advantage of modern scholarship, the four they selected were the only one that werre[sic] written in the first century. 20th cenetury[sic] modern scholarship can attest that the other 16 gospels were written much later than the first century, so they were defintely[sic] forgeries. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas could not have been written by the Apostle Thomas since it was defintely[sic] not written in the first century.

That they didn't screw up and canonize something from the wrong century doesn't exactly show that they were divinely inspired.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So I've got a question about the authenticity of the bible. I was talking to a friend about what constitutes the core tenants of christianity, and he replied "pretty much everything in the nicaea creed". Well, ok, but then I researched that a bit and I was amazed.

This was a forum of a bunch of official dudes deciding what part of the bible they liked and what parts they didn't. It wasn't divinely inspired, it wasn't whispered by angels. It went through something like congress. They also dealt with some schism and inconstancies at the time.
They edited the bible.

How can the bible still be taken on faith? I kinda understand how people can have faith in the word of god, but I don't understand how people can have faith in the church. It's made of men and people have explained that all the ills of the world are because everyone is inherently sinful. If the church got rid of books and other early christian writings, then doesn't that put the bible in doubt? Not the text itself I guess, but the voids. How did they choose one book over another? and what all did they cut?

I can explain this from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective.
We believe that Christ appointed apostles to go out, teach the faith and lead the faithful. Their goal wasn't necessarily to write books for us to privately interpret, but to guide and teach us with the power of the Holy Spirit. So the apostles went out, taught the faith and appointed bishops (who have the same power and authority as the apostles, as they were ordained by them) to lead us for generations. Four of the apostles actually became bishops (Peter in Rome, Andrew in Constantinople, Mark in Alexandria and James in Jerusalem). These bishops' successors are now leaders within Catholicism/Orthodoxy. The bishop of Rome is called "The Pope" today. The bishop of Constantinople is the Patriarch of Constantinople and a figurative leader of the eastern Churches. All the bishops had successors who have the same power and mission of the apostles. These bishops led us for generations and continue to lead us. Each region/city within Christianity had a bishop to guide it.

Some of the apostles wrote letters to communities- and they were saved and included in the bible because they spoke with authority in them. We see this in some of the books like Hebrews, Romans, et cetera- they are obviously letters addressed to communities. Some letters were intended to go to all communities (these are found more towards the end of the NT) They were the earliest writings. The Gospels developed into four different forms (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and were taught orally- until they were finally written down sometime around 100AD to 200AD.

In the 4th Century, Christianity was legalized and so all the bishops were finally able to meet together and discuss some of the issues that were brought up. They were able to gather up the different texts they had and declare them inspired. Gnosticism was a competing form of Christianity that emerged and had its own texts. These were not included because they went against the teachings of the Catholic and orthodox Church.

They didn't really edit the bible, because there was no bible (except the OT) until that time. There were a lot of texts that were being used and had apostolic authority (meaning they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as all bishops are)... so they declared which ones were absolutely inspired so all communities could use them. Until that time, communities had collections of holy texts- which had the OT books, Gospels, letters from the apostles and some church fathers. They basically decided to go with the texts that came from the apostles (the Gospels, Acts, Revelation and the Letters) and universalize them into one collection (dropping the church fathers, although keeping their texts in other sources).

We believe the bishops who met at Nicea and created the Creed had the same authority and power of the apostles- that their decisions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[dewaddict84]

A belated thank you for that insight.

This too comes back to what irked me. It's the trust of man to do god's work unerringly:
- had apostolic authority (meaning they were inspired by the Holy Spirit,
- and were taught orally- until they were finally written down sometime around 100AD to 200AD.
- The council itself say that it was guided by the Holy Spirit.
- some bitter fights, but through it all God is still sovreignl[sic]. His will is done.
- that they chose the books of the bible when in fact God did.

But I still don't see why. The catholic perspective trusts the leaders of the church, because, well, it's the church. And they're tied directly to god, or some such. I see men that went through a political system and were given a title. I mean no insult, that's just how it appears. Likewise with the council, and even before that, the gospels. Jesus was most likely illiterate, right? How can I trust that they got everything perfect? God did it? You could say that for anything and everything. All this comes down to the human factor. And with that factor in play, the divinity and perfection of the bible is in question.

 

[ebia]

A belated thank you for that insight.

This too comes back to what irked me. It's the trust of man to do god's work unerringly:
- had apostolic authority (meaning they were inspired by the Holy Spirit,
- and were taught orally- until they were finally written down sometime around 100AD to 200AD.

eh? What was?
The various books of the New Testament were written between about AD 50 (Thessalonians) and AD100. One or two might be very early 2nd Century - maybe 2nd Peter - but the vast majority if not all of them are the second half of the first century.

 

[dewaddict84]

*shrug* don't ask me.
*points to SpiritualAntiseptic" Take it up with the Catholic. http://www.christianforums.com/users/201446/