Where they fought over which writings would become the New Testament canon, arbitrarily settling on some texts while excluding others that presented entirely different views of Jesus and what he was about?
So, really, your religion is about trusting these guys ... not Jesus.
2007-10-17 05:00:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You don't like what you believe to be "Christianity," and so you'll look around for reasons to support you not liking it -- including not knowing or understanding history.
The current Bible was more or less in the current order in 367.
The council of Nicea of 325 was simply one meeting, there were others before, and others since . . but you've latched on to that half truth, and you're letting it shape what you think you believe.
Sort of like President Bush decided on Sept. 12, 2001, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, and the USA was going to invade Iraq. It didn't matter what the facts were, he, like you had made up his mind . . .and facts didn't matter.
Godspeed.
2007-10-17 05:18:23 · answer #1 · answered by jimmeisnerjr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the Bible was "put together" by the third Synod of Carthage (397 CE)
The Council of Nicea condemned the teachings of Arius and adopted a creed outlining correct belief about the Son's relationship to the Father. The council was the first to include bishops from several different regions, and is thus considered the first "ecumenical council" of the church.
Not the same. :)
2007-10-17 05:48:02 · answer #2 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Uh, no.
First, if you read the actual canons (which you should do), you will find that Nicea ratified pre-existing canons, rather than making new ones. If Nicea represent anybody's religion, it wasn't the generation of bishops who attended the council.
Second, Scripture wasn't even a topic at Nicea. Again, read the canons. Do you see any mention, whatsoever, about the canon of Scripture? That's because the whole "canon of Scripture" thing wasn't a canon in the first place. AFTER the counicl of Nicea had already ended, several bishops remained behind to provide a list of books for the scribes. They did not attempt to determine what was Scripture, and they did not issue a single canon about the content of Scripture. All they did was decide what to put in the free book that Constantine offered to print for them.
Now, who are you going to trust? Some guy who talks about the Nicene Canons without even bothering to read them?
2007-10-17 05:08:58 · answer #3 · answered by NONAME 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Gertrude...You suggested that some text textile confirmed Jesus in an completely distinctive way from the way the Bible states...so which you my little gertie are arbitrarily apart from what the bible says to the ease of what it does no longer say...in basic terms because of the fact the pharisees did outstanding in front of the son of God. And definite ...My faith is undemanding to %. aside...Like why do Adam and Eve have abdomen buttons?..i think all in all my faith is a nuclear power in comparison on your susceptible loss of religion..reliable success loving something on your life because of the fact God is Love and you do no longer hear him...no longer ordinary phrases to communicate, yet i think of you will hear me.
2016-12-29 14:56:31 · answer #4 · answered by secrist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I actually do trust Jesus.
2007-10-17 05:16:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, Catholicism is a man made religion. The founder is constanine in 300AD
2007-10-17 05:03:40 · answer #6 · answered by brian 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
no and youe not correct...even in 1600s the KJV was accurate
2007-10-17 05:16:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Jesus is the only way
2007-10-17 05:05:45 · answer #8 · answered by jesussaves 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Don't be an idiot. Stop wasting space with idiot questions.
2007-10-17 05:06:17 · answer #9 · answered by Pal 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋