What About The Doctrines That Were Changed In The Bible?

[imind]

Well the channel is owned by a bunch of Edomites. Do you really want to be taking religious advice from a source dedicated to destroying Christianity?

absurd, and as our lord commands, i would not be so indifferent to the truth.

 

[ps139]

but after considering the events leading up to the establishment of the canon, which undeniably began with constantine (according to the history i have read )

Did you know that much before Nicea and Constantine, the different bishops were discussing what they thought should be the NT canon?

As time went on, the list kept getting narrowed down. But the process began much, much earlier than Constantine. And it ended after him.

 

[ps139]

I read somewhere that Jerome discussed this with a group of people (at least when putting together the Vulgate), and successfully argued for the exclusion of Enoch on the basis that there would not be room for the Apocalypse.

Where can I find the primary sources for these events (I presume Jerome documented this himself), and is there an English translation of this (I presume also it will be in Latin)?

Here is a treasure chest of information - all the translated documents from the Fathers:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

I have not heard that about Jerome, but if it is true you would be able to find it at the site.

All the Fathers are listed alphabetically, and there are links to their works.

 

[imind]

Did you know that much before Nicea and Constantine, the different bishops were discussing what they thought should be the NT canon?

As time went on, the list kept getting narrowed down. But the process began much, much earlier than Constantine. And it ended after him.

yes, but there was much disagreement over excceptionally important details. for instance, to call christ of one being with god, essentially calling them the same, was hugely controversial.

 

[ps139]

yes, but there was much disagreement over excceptionally important details. for instance, to call christ of one being with god, essentially calling them the same, was hugely controversial.

I would not say there was that much disagreement, at least among the bishops. More like the regular church members were being confused by the heretic Arius.

The Council, which I completely believe was guided by the Holy Spirit, (Jesus did say that the Spirit would guide the Church), voted 300-2 that Christ was of the same substance as the Father. Not "similar" and in some halfway point between god and man... but fully God and fully Man. If Christ were not fully God and fully Man, I don't believe Calvary would've achieved anything.

 

[imind]

I would not say there was that much disagreement, at least among the bishops. More like the regular church members were being confused by the heretic Arius.

i don't know that it was as simplistic as this, as christ's sameness was not scripturally supported, and was in contention for many years.

That the public unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissenters) masked a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts over the use of a term which had been previously denounced as Sabellian weighed on the minds of many. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having embraced Arianism. But his moderate attitude throughout the following period suggests that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, owed more to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. And his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shows that his apprehensions were not altogether unreasonable. For he remarks how the final consensus emerged after considerable discussion that the term homoousion was not intended to indicate that the Son formed an actual portion of the Father - which would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, a fear which fed much of the dissension to the adoption of the creed. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced that unless the essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons.

after the council of nicaea