lol They’ve been cherry-picking since Constantine’s Council of Nicaea. Half of Rome was still Pagan and half of it was converted Christian. Constantine felt that civil war was coming, so he invited all of the most influential from both sides and they sat down to decide what should stay in the Bible and what should be removed to make both sides happy.
That’s not quite right. Council of Nicaea didn’t choose biblical canon. They chose the teachings of certain Christian sects over others, which later had an affect on canon.
Ah, I apologize, then. It’s been a long time since I went deep down the history rabbit hole, but I knew it was something along the lines of changing it somehow.
All good, it’s a pet peeve of mine. I’ve seen Ratheists try to say Nicea set biblical canon, and when I point out otherwise, they cite the WikiPedia article on Nicea at me. Which explicitly says the council did not set biblical canon. It’s not even like the atheist argument against Christianity hinges on when and where biblical canon was established; it’s fairly easy to make without it.
Yeah, I was reading up on it again. Its surprising how much misleading information there is on that particular subject. There was a time I went deep into Gnostic texts and rumor. I was interested in this time period particularly, but I admit life got the better of me and it took a back burner.
It seems to get generalized as “they changed it and took stuff out” a lot with no further context, which is where I picked up on it. In fact, some Gnostic articles seem to go as far to say they did remove things. However, I’ve read that a good amount of Gnostic texts are dated much later than the Council of Nisaea, somewhere between 500-800AD. Its all so blurry, but I find it fascinating. Its like “don’t believe what you read on the internet” before the internet existed. So many rumors and legends.
Yeah, and it’s fascinating to me. I grew up in a high control Christian group (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and their narrative is that the first century Christians were completely united in belief and purpose, and that they are the direct inheritors of that. A more careful reading of the gospels will show there were stark differences in belief among those writers. A quote from Jesus shows up in one that doesn’t in the other because each writer was trying to advance a certain viewpoint that wasn’t universally shared by Christians at the time.
I find this way more interesting than one set of unified beliefs.
lol They’ve been cherry-picking since Constantine’s Council of Nicaea. Half of Rome was still Pagan and half of it was converted Christian. Constantine felt that civil war was coming, so he invited all of the most influential from both sides and they sat down to decide what should stay in the Bible and what should be removed to make both sides happy.
That’s not quite right. Council of Nicaea didn’t choose biblical canon. They chose the teachings of certain Christian sects over others, which later had an affect on canon.
Ah, I apologize, then. It’s been a long time since I went deep down the history rabbit hole, but I knew it was something along the lines of changing it somehow.
All good, it’s a pet peeve of mine. I’ve seen Ratheists try to say Nicea set biblical canon, and when I point out otherwise, they cite the WikiPedia article on Nicea at me. Which explicitly says the council did not set biblical canon. It’s not even like the atheist argument against Christianity hinges on when and where biblical canon was established; it’s fairly easy to make without it.
Yeah, I was reading up on it again. Its surprising how much misleading information there is on that particular subject. There was a time I went deep into Gnostic texts and rumor. I was interested in this time period particularly, but I admit life got the better of me and it took a back burner.
It seems to get generalized as “they changed it and took stuff out” a lot with no further context, which is where I picked up on it. In fact, some Gnostic articles seem to go as far to say they did remove things. However, I’ve read that a good amount of Gnostic texts are dated much later than the Council of Nisaea, somewhere between 500-800AD. Its all so blurry, but I find it fascinating. Its like “don’t believe what you read on the internet” before the internet existed. So many rumors and legends.
Yeah, and it’s fascinating to me. I grew up in a high control Christian group (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and their narrative is that the first century Christians were completely united in belief and purpose, and that they are the direct inheritors of that. A more careful reading of the gospels will show there were stark differences in belief among those writers. A quote from Jesus shows up in one that doesn’t in the other because each writer was trying to advance a certain viewpoint that wasn’t universally shared by Christians at the time.
I find this way more interesting than one set of unified beliefs.
Oh hey,I also grew up JW. I also like being specific and correct when criticizing beliefs etc.
Greetings, my sibling in apostasy!