http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm
Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."
What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem'. There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.
So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...
And Christians still believe?
Nazareth
Moderator: Moderators
Post #121
You just never can tell . . .
"The site where Nazareth exists today was founded and
settled between 600-900 BCE. .... The villages and
farms ... at the time of Jesus consisted of walled
terraces, watch towers, and rock quarries. ...
"Archaeological excavations conducted in Nazareth since
1955 have shown that Nazareth was a small agricultural
village settled by a few dozen families. Pottery
remains testify a continuous settlement during that
period (600-900 BCE). After those years there was a
break in settlement until about the year 200 BCE. It is
believed that first-century Nazareth was a village
comprised of approximately twenty-five families.
"Since then [200 B.C.], the site of Nazareth has been
consistently inhabited. ... The agricultural aspect of
the city was discovered from the discoveries of oil
mills and mill stones."
http://www.skidmore.edu/~m_mcgort/history.html
http://www.holylandnetwork.com/nazareth/nazareth.htm
"Sometimes some Muslims pick up on a very outdated
atheist critique that Nazareth didn't even exist in
Jesus time. Here is a response from a resident of
Nazareth, February 1998.
"Perhaps the Muslim 'scholar' referred to the fact
that there was no Christian Church in Nazareth until
Queen Helena, Constantine's mother came through
Nazareth on her famous Holy Land trip in the fourth
century and had the little basilica built over Mary's
Well to mark the spot of the annunciation by the angel
Gabriel. They were recently repairing the road in
front of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation
at Mary's Well in Nazareth. They discovered earlier
ruins in the process, so now the whole plaza in front
of the church is now an archeological site and you
cannot drive a car through!
"Down the road in the center of town the huge Basilica
to the Annunciation built by the Roman Catholics
preserves as its altar the first Century cave home of
the Virgin Mary and its foundations are built over
numerous cave dwellings. They have a little archeological
museum with artifacts found during this period. Up the
hill is the Church of Joseph built over caves which they
claim were used as carpenter shops. Across the street
the Sister's of Nazareth Hospice is built over an ancient
first century or earlier grave with the huge rolling
stone door still in place. A block away (modern term!)
the Greek Catholic Church in the market is built next to
the ancient synagogue that Jesus read the Torah in and the
people took him out to throw him off the hill the city was
built on.
"So, anyone with eyes to see needs no proof of the existence
of Nazareth in the first century and many centuries earlier!
Nazareth was know as a city of refuge, tucked away in a
mountain valley above the Valley of Meggido, or Esdraelon.
It was a sleeply little hollow less than 2-3 miles from the
metropolis Zippori where Mary's mother was from. Zippori has
recently been excavated by Duke University and is now one of
the largest archeological sites in the country which shows
first century and earlier synagogues and homes with beautiful
mosaics still intact."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nazareth.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #122
What I read was that there was a group or community of Nazarenes or Essenes or Jessians in the are now Nazareth. This group had been around for awhile. I think we covered this in another thread. Personally I think it was named Nazareth after the group. Even Albright mentions switching letters though he prefers the Town/village idea. Even if the town did not exist there are other reasons to count why he was called a Nazarene or even from nazareth as transmitted in some NT writings. It seems either way it does not show he did not exist. But existing does not make him God
or even a Prophet. Maybe a King of a sect or group. There were many and he did get hung for sedition. Getting crucified was not rare especially for a Jew. Galileans were a favorite too. From 4 BCE and 135 CE there were many insurrections put down. Records were lost. We have little to go on and the church history is rather missing from Paul thru Constantine it is all rather shadowy and mystical and the texts are varied and numerous.
or even a Prophet. Maybe a King of a sect or group. There were many and he did get hung for sedition. Getting crucified was not rare especially for a Jew. Galileans were a favorite too. From 4 BCE and 135 CE there were many insurrections put down. Records were lost. We have little to go on and the church history is rather missing from Paul thru Constantine it is all rather shadowy and mystical and the texts are varied and numerous.
Post #123
Alright. But is it OK if I believe He is? So many "coincidences" one after the other after the other.What I read was that there was a group or community of Nazarenes or Essenes or Jessians in the are now Nazareth. This group had been around for awhile. I think we covered this in another thread. Personally I think it was named Nazareth after the group. Even Albright mentions switching letters though he prefers the Town/village idea. Even if the town did not exist there are other reasons to count why he was called a Nazarene or even from nazareth as transmitted in some NT writings. It seems either way it does not show he did not exist. But existing does not make him God . . .
Yes maybe a King.. . or even a Prophet. Maybe a King of a sect or group.
There were many and he did get hung for sedition.
No myths need apply.
Getting crucified was not rare especially for a Jew.
And Jesus was a Jew. King of the Jews in fact. According to the inscription on His cross.
.Galileans were a favorite too
And favorite apostles too.
And the story of one quiet "insurrection" unassumingly made it through until this day.From 4 BCE and 135 CE there were many insurrections put down.
You mean original texts have probably have dissolved over time like what is happening to the declaration of Independence. Luckily accurate copies were made of the New Testament as well.Records were lost.
Constantine has nothing to do with New Testament scripture. Paul on the other hand we know well.We have little to go on and the church history is rather missing from Paul thru Constantine it is all rather shadowy and mystical and the texts are varied and numerous.
-
Master Coelacanth
- Student
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:30 am
- Location: Argentina
Post #124
????????????????????????????????????????????????????Constantine has nothing to do with New Testament scripture.
Who do you think that actually sanctioned the canon then?
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #125
There is some question on the accuracy of the copies and there meanings and there invention and let us not forget the editing including additions.You mean original texts have probably have dissolved over time like what is happening to the declaration of Independence. Luckily accurate copies were made of the New Testament as well.
There was no NT as such there were many Christian writing all claiming to be Gospel. Who ever wrote Mark created his version or story usually based on Pauline thought. Then Luke and Matthew used his version and changed a few things to meet the communities needs as they changed and added things to explain using their own stories. John had his own traditions and perspective while familiar with some of the other rightings.
In the fragments we have of copies of copies of reworked material that more discrepancies then pieces. Then of course there is the stuff suppressed or destroyed by the church fathers as the obtained power.
Accuracy is certainly questionable. But even more questionable is why even being accurate that it should all be believed followed and considered the word of God. I disagree with much of Paul's thinking. I have no reason to believe Paul or count him as an authority. Yes Constantine did have a lot to do with it. He even requested and paid for it.
Post #126
Greetings,
Constantine had NOTHING to do with the canonisation of the Bible.
The Council of Nicea did NOT decide the books of the Bible - you can check the canons etc. of that council here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Note none of documents refers to choosing the books of the bible.
You can also read various accounts from early writers - some of whom were AT THE COUNCIL :
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Note none of writers refers to choosing the books of the bible.
Yet somehow, this urban myth is endlessly repeated on the internet - at least, by those who don't bother to check things.
Now,
it IS true that some years AFTER the Council of Nicea, Constantine did order a set of 50 bibles to be produced - 2 of them still exist (Aleph and B IIRC.)
These bibles are NOT quite the same as modern copies.
The modern canon took many centuries to form, the Church only formally approved the canon LONG after it had been settled.
The first canon list which is like ours is from the Festal Epistle of Athanasius in 367CE IIRC.
Iasion
The first poster was correct.Master Coelacanth wrote:????????????????????????????????????????????????????Constantine has nothing to do with New Testament scripture.
Who do you think that actually sanctioned the canon then?
Constantine had NOTHING to do with the canonisation of the Bible.
The Council of Nicea did NOT decide the books of the Bible - you can check the canons etc. of that council here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Note none of documents refers to choosing the books of the bible.
You can also read various accounts from early writers - some of whom were AT THE COUNCIL :
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Note none of writers refers to choosing the books of the bible.
Yet somehow, this urban myth is endlessly repeated on the internet - at least, by those who don't bother to check things.
Now,
it IS true that some years AFTER the Council of Nicea, Constantine did order a set of 50 bibles to be produced - 2 of them still exist (Aleph and B IIRC.)
These bibles are NOT quite the same as modern copies.
The modern canon took many centuries to form, the Church only formally approved the canon LONG after it had been settled.
The first canon list which is like ours is from the Festal Epistle of Athanasius in 367CE IIRC.
Iasion
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #127
He ordered and paid the people that made the creeds and what was normative Christianity and they picked the cannon for what ever doctrinal political reasons that fit within the creeds.Constantine had NOTHING to do with the canonisation of the Bible.
It makes his contribution understated to say he had nothing to do with early Christianity and all that followed.
Post #128
Greetings,
Oh, you mean the "canon".
Well,
they produced a CREED -
which has NO mention of the bible books.
and they produced a Synodal Letter -
which has NO mention of the bible books.
and they produced a list of canons (rules)
which has NO mention of the bible books.
I gave links for all those - why didn't you check them?
If you had, you would find your claims not true.
Yes,
Constantine had a great influence on Christianity - we all agree there.
No,
Constantine did NOT have ANYTHING to do with chosing the books of the bible.
As it appears you don't want to actually CHECK the facts, I will quote the documents here - I hope you will actually READ these, so you can see you claim is not correct :
THE CREED
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote hote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
THE CANONS
Canon 1. If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behoves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy.
Canon 2. Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual layer, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.
Canon 3. The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.
Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Canon 8. Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.
Canon 9. If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.
Canon 10. If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.
Canon 11. Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.
Canon 12. As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.
Canon 13. Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.
Canon 14. Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.
Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shah dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.
Canon 17. Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, "He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.
Canon 18. It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.
Canon 19. Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.
Canon 20. Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere(in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
THE SYNODAL LETTER
To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicæa, wish health in the Lord.
Forasmuch as the great and holy synod, which was assembled at Nicæa through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign Constantine, who brought us together from our several provinces and cities, has considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it seemed to us to be necessary that certain things should be communicated from us to you in writing, so that you might have the means of knowing what has been mooted and investigated, and also what has been decreed and confirmed.
First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arias and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, ye have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.
But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or parish, and have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander. So that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in the Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to succeed to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall appear to be worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the bishop of Alexandria shall concur in the election and ratify it. This concession has been made to all the rest; but, on account of his disorderly conduct from the first, and the rashness and precipitation of his character, the same decree was not made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor privilege should be conceded to him.
These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to the most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most honoured lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has been enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to you in greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow-worker in what has been done.
We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.
Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common peace and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye with the greater honour and with increased love, our colleague your Bishop Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at so great an age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be established among you and all of us. Pray ye also for us all, that the things which have been deemed advisable may stand fast; for they have been done, as we believe, to the well-pleasing of Almighty God and of his only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
(End of quotes)
Note well -
not one of those documents, produced by the Council of Nicea, refers to chosing the bible canon.
Which is exactly what we find in he several reports of the meeting, even by those who WERE THERE -
not one of those writers refers to the Council chosing the bible canon.
It amazes me that people can claim this - even when the evidence this is wrong is produced.
Mate -
if you REALLY believe the Council chose the books of the bible -
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Iasion
They picked a CANNON?Cathar1950 wrote:He ordered and paid the people that made the creeds and what was normative Christianity and they picked the cannon
Oh, you mean the "canon".
Well,
they produced a CREED -
which has NO mention of the bible books.
and they produced a Synodal Letter -
which has NO mention of the bible books.
and they produced a list of canons (rules)
which has NO mention of the bible books.
I gave links for all those - why didn't you check them?
If you had, you would find your claims not true.
It would be great if you read what I wrote.Cathar1950 wrote:It makes his contribution understated to say he had nothing to do with early Christianity and all that followed.
Yes,
Constantine had a great influence on Christianity - we all agree there.
No,
Constantine did NOT have ANYTHING to do with chosing the books of the bible.
As it appears you don't want to actually CHECK the facts, I will quote the documents here - I hope you will actually READ these, so you can see you claim is not correct :
THE CREED
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote hote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
THE CANONS
Canon 1. If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behoves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy.
Canon 2. Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual layer, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.
Canon 3. The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.
Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Canon 8. Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.
Canon 9. If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.
Canon 10. If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.
Canon 11. Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.
Canon 12. As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.
Canon 13. Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.
Canon 14. Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.
Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shah dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.
Canon 17. Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, "He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.
Canon 18. It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.
Canon 19. Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.
Canon 20. Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere(in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
THE SYNODAL LETTER
To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicæa, wish health in the Lord.
Forasmuch as the great and holy synod, which was assembled at Nicæa through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign Constantine, who brought us together from our several provinces and cities, has considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it seemed to us to be necessary that certain things should be communicated from us to you in writing, so that you might have the means of knowing what has been mooted and investigated, and also what has been decreed and confirmed.
First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arias and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, ye have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.
But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or parish, and have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander. So that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in the Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to succeed to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall appear to be worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the bishop of Alexandria shall concur in the election and ratify it. This concession has been made to all the rest; but, on account of his disorderly conduct from the first, and the rashness and precipitation of his character, the same decree was not made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor privilege should be conceded to him.
These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to the most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most honoured lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has been enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to you in greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow-worker in what has been done.
We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.
Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common peace and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye with the greater honour and with increased love, our colleague your Bishop Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at so great an age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be established among you and all of us. Pray ye also for us all, that the things which have been deemed advisable may stand fast; for they have been done, as we believe, to the well-pleasing of Almighty God and of his only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
(End of quotes)
Note well -
not one of those documents, produced by the Council of Nicea, refers to chosing the bible canon.
Which is exactly what we find in he several reports of the meeting, even by those who WERE THERE -
not one of those writers refers to the Council chosing the bible canon.
It amazes me that people can claim this - even when the evidence this is wrong is produced.
Mate -
if you REALLY believe the Council chose the books of the bible -
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Iasion
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #129
Fine they didn't pick the cannon. He was only instrumental he making them all agree on what they believed. So tell us who picked the cannon or did it drop out of the shy?
Your splitting hairs. In context I stated that Constantine had a lot to do with the spread of Christianity and it's formation. I was saying he was part of the orthodoxy process and ordered it to happen. He felt the were wasting their time bickering about things no one cared about or understood.
I hardly mentioned the cannon or a cannon mostly I was talking about doctrine and creeds and oaths.
why do you think they had these meeting?The Synods of Carthage in 397 and 418 both confirmed our current twenty-seven books of the NT.
Your splitting hairs. In context I stated that Constantine had a lot to do with the spread of Christianity and it's formation. I was saying he was part of the orthodoxy process and ordered it to happen. He felt the were wasting their time bickering about things no one cared about or understood.
I hardly mentioned the cannon or a cannon mostly I was talking about doctrine and creeds and oaths.
Post #130
Greetings Cathar1950
Thanks for your measured reply.
I hope I didn't sound too picky
not everyone easily admits being mistaken
Of course you are right that Constantine played a very big part in bringing the Christians to a consensus.
Perhaps it is splitting hairs,
but I see this urban myth about Nicea repeated often,
and I just like to set this straight.
http://www.ntcanon.org
In short, the canon developed over centuries, as various early writers and later councils made lists - various books dropping out, or in, at various times.
The early evidence consists of:
You can see the early details at the web site above.
The early writers give us clues about inclusion of individual books.
Then we have the Muratorian Canon from about 3rd C. maybe (not complete, but similar to ours.)
We also have famous early bibles such as the Constantine bibles (not quite like ours, but close) from about the 350s. You can buy a facsimile for only $6000, have a look at this little beauty :
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
The first council decision on a canon was Laodicea in 360, similar to ours.
The very first canon like ours was from Athanasius' letter in 367.
By late 4th century, several minor councils agrred on the modern canon - Council of Laodicea (c. 360), Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393).
The final, formal ecumenical council decision on the canon did not happen until a millenium later - Trent in 1545, (a prior identical canon in Florence 1441 was listed but not formally declared IIRC.)
Iasion
Thanks for your measured reply.
I hope I didn't sound too picky
Thanks for agreeing,Cathar1950 wrote:Fine they didn't pick the cannon.
not everyone easily admits being mistaken
Of course you are right that Constantine played a very big part in bringing the Christians to a consensus.
Perhaps it is splitting hairs,
but I see this urban myth about Nicea repeated often,
and I just like to set this straight.
It's quite a complex story, here is a useful page:Cathar1950 wrote:So tell us who picked the cannon or did it drop out of the shy?
http://www.ntcanon.org
In short, the canon developed over centuries, as various early writers and later councils made lists - various books dropping out, or in, at various times.
The early evidence consists of:
- early Church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus the Blind)
- early heretics and their followers (Marcion and Marcionites, Valentinus and the Valentinians)
- lists of canonical books (Muratorian Canon, Athanasius' Festal Epistle)
- a single manuscript collection (codex Sinaiticus)
- series of manuscripts (Peshitta, Vulgate)
You can see the early details at the web site above.
The early writers give us clues about inclusion of individual books.
Then we have the Muratorian Canon from about 3rd C. maybe (not complete, but similar to ours.)
We also have famous early bibles such as the Constantine bibles (not quite like ours, but close) from about the 350s. You can buy a facsimile for only $6000, have a look at this little beauty :
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
The first council decision on a canon was Laodicea in 360, similar to ours.
The very first canon like ours was from Athanasius' letter in 367.
By late 4th century, several minor councils agrred on the modern canon - Council of Laodicea (c. 360), Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393).
The final, formal ecumenical council decision on the canon did not happen until a millenium later - Trent in 1545, (a prior identical canon in Florence 1441 was listed but not formally declared IIRC.)
Iasion
