On Dec 26, 9:18Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:14�pm, Roger Pearse wrote:

On 21 Dec, 22:07, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I think Larry is trying to get you to look at the source of the Bible.
Have you ever considered the testaments that *weren't* included in the
Bible?

The Catholics decided, in the 4th century, what you should believe
and.... by a show of hands .....decided what should be considered holy
and what should be considered anathema. If one was politically correct
one's motion(dogma) carried, if not it didn't. The true word was
created!

So it says in the "Da Vinci code". �Must be true, I suppose?

Of course it's complete nonsense.

I first graduated from a college affiliated with a particular
Christian denomination. We were required to study religion and I found
studying both sides of a central point in time established by the
Councils ofNiceato be an amazing trip. This led me to the conclusion
that anybody that feels that they are Christian should do at least two
things:

1) Read the Bible.... ALL OF IT..... and

2) Study the history of the creation of Christianity....

Agree or disagree with what you like..... but you owe it to yourself
to be an informed consumer....

So why didn't you learn about the subject before you posted such
arrant tripe?

While the council didn't specifically canonize the modern Bible,
Constantine did order at essentially Â*that same time 50 copies of the
"approved" religious texts for use in the churches of Constantinople.

It would be a curious leap to assert that when you or I buy a bible we
determine its contents!

Constantine did order 50 copies of the bible from the famous
scriptorium at Caesarea (and doubtless from other scriptoria also) in
order to supply them to his new city in Constantinople.

Modern scholars disagree whether those approved scriptures included
nearly all of the current "New Testament" or merely Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John-

References are required for this curious assertion, you know. Since
fourth century codices could contain the complete NT, we may
reasonably suppose that they did. The term 'New Testament' was
already two centuries old by then.

but there is no thought that any books not included in
a modern Bible were made available to the churches in Constantinople.

Well, perhaps; but not necessarily. In the manuscript era books can
contain all sorts of things written on spare pages, or considered
useful. It is a mistake to imagine that a manuscript of the bible
necessarily contains only canonical materials. Every manuscript is
unique. Some of the 4th century codices contain material from the
apostolic fathers.

The council atNiceadid order the burning of books representing
minority viewpoints regarding whether God was of a triune nature, etc.

Actually it did not. It had no power to do anything of the kind, not
being a state body.

Constantine issued an order that the books of Arius be burned -- Arius
being Trinitarian, of course, although Arian -- but there is no
evidence that they were, and Arius himself returned from exile soon
after.

At least one major priest was kicked out of the church for "wrong
thinking".

This is vague. Who?

This seems to insinuate that for an organisation based on ideological
principle to require its leaders to subscribe to those principles is
immoral. Are you really enthusiastic for insincerity? If we must
have priests, let the buggers be honest.

Nevertheless, as Gene said by the end of the 4th Century the Church
had convened a series of committe meetings to discuss and debate which
books should be included in the official Bible, and things decided
then are still in effect today.

This is misleading, tho. The process of closing the canon was in no
way so arbitrary, and there is no record of such "committee
meetings". Please produce ancient evidence for your assertion, if you
propose to disagree.

In addition toNicea,there were councils convened at Laodicea and
Carthage that addressed canonization.

No, these councils were convened for other purposes, but lists of
books are issued among the canons of the councils. This practise was
mainly to ensure that fake texts were not read in church. (The
composition of such fakes has been a hobby of heretics up to our own
day).

A number of false assumptions prevailed at these councils, including the common
belief that books we now know did not exist prior to 150-180 AD were "apostolic" writings,
(authored by men who had traveled with Jesus).

Which books might these be, that did not exist at that absurdly late
date, and what evidence can be produced for this daft idea?

All the best,

Roger Pearse