Paul Contra Jesus

MrRee from what I can tell is not asking you provide a history book of answers. Just some shread of historic fact or even some logical reason on why Constantine didn't choose what went in the bible. I for one belive that Constantine did choose what went in the bible, however I don't belive that the Church rewrote it. Why do I belive they didn't rewrite it? Mainly because there wasn't suffcient reason to. The common man couldn't read, and it was "evil heircey" to question the Church. so there really wasn't much reason too. Eramaus. whats the main diffrence on what i wrote and what you wrote?

A) I'm not flame'n
B) My theory is logical to a certian degree
C) What I chose to make up my theory has historic ties to it.

Could I be wrong? Yes, I very wel could be. However you can't prove what I said wrong anymore then I can prove what Mr.Ree said wrong. Why? Because its history, and all history is a great big theory!

 

That is one reason why I like the greek cross. It was used by the early Christians to disguise themselves from persecutors, similar to the "fish" symbol. I also like the orthodox cross. It contains 2 other cross beams along with the main one (for the arms). A small top one representing the titilus (often with INRI inscribed on it) and a lower slanted one representing the one man crucified with Jesus that was saved (side pointing up) and the man that wasn't (the side pointing down). To me the orthodox cross isn't so much a symbol that the latin cross has become, but you can actually see a bit of a narrative within it.

If Christ returned tomorrow, I personally think he would be upset at how commercial the latin cross has become. Think of all the people who sport them just because it is fashionable (I am reminded of Britany Spears wearing a rosary, which is just silly in the first place cause you don't wear a rosary).

 

well she is blonde you know!!!!

 

Oh look.. more conjecture and made up assertions by the big baby.
Where again was this evidence that Constantine chose books to be canonised.
Nowhere.
Because you just made it up.

Feel free to provide any evidence of that anytime you like.
Otherwise..
Congrats, I can just say that Dick Cheney blew up the WTC and where is your goddam evidence otherwise Mr.Ree?

Idiot.

 

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

 

Well done.
Its nice to see a good link once in a while - meaning, an article that is full of references and accounts for sources etc.

Absolutely nowhere is there any reason to believe Constantine does any choosing of the Canon and even further to that - Nicene does not choose the Canon anyways and as they say "the Canon had evidently already chosen itself' before Nicene.

The authors conclusion at least put to rest the insane Internet Hoaxing going on about this ridiculous 'Constantine Chose the Bible' crap being 'Forwarded' by disengenuous hipforums members and others who dont know any better.

btw.. in case you hadnt heard it before (it was pre-internetish) but the big one before this was the 'Reincarnation' hoax' that Jesus taught Reincarnation but that the Nicene Council 'erased it'.


From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards. However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback. Even Arius was recalled by Constantine.

 

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

 

I just say Erasmus is full of invisible shit.

Where's your evidence otherwise?

 

You know... I'm a pretty liberal christian on some issues, and i also have some whacked out theories of my own...But I sometimes wonder if Erasmus is really being serious or not

 

A letter from Constantine, to Eusebius, as recorded in The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 15.



"In the city which bears our name, a great number of persons have, through the providential care of God the Saviour, united themselves to the holy Church. As all things there are in a state of rapid improvement, we deemed it most important that an additional number of churches should be built. Adopt joyfully the mode of procedure determined upon by us, which we have thought expedient to make known to your prudence, namely, that you should get written, on fine parchment, fifty volumes, easily legible and handy for use; these you must have transcribed by skilled calligraphers, accurately acquainted with their art. I mean, of course, copies of the Holy Scriptures, which, as you know, it is most necessary that the congregation of the Church should both have and use. A letter has been sent from our clemency to the catholicus of the diocese, in order that he may be careful that everything necessary for the undertaking is supplied. The duty devolving upon you is to take measures to ensure the completion of these manuscripts within a short space of time. When they are finished, you are authorised by this letter to order two public carriages for the purpose of transmitting them to us; and thus the fair manuscripts will be easily submitted to our inspection. Appoint one of the deacons of your church to take charge of this part of the business; when he comes to us, he shall receive proofs of our benevolence. May God preserve you, beloved brother."