Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
yet another strawman; seems like a pattern...
-----------------------------------
That suggests to me you don't know very many atheists; or you are just trolling (that is an almost universal snide remark made by the trolls who come here).
-----------------------------------
If those statements aren't accurate, please tell me. If they are accurate, then please stop associating/strawman'ing me as a crackpot.
"That suggests to me you don't know very many atheists"
I know quite a few. Given that I'm an atheist myself and have been one for 30 years, it's unlikely that I'm not going to be pretty familiar with them. But what I said is we "are *supposed* to be the rational ones". I can't see how that unremarkable statement could "suggest" anything much to you about how many atheists I may or may not know personally.
"The bible was compiled at the behest of Constantine"
Umm, no. At that stage there was nothing we could call "THE Bible". That's precisely my point. What Eusebius tells us is that Constantine ordered him to oversee 50 copies "of the sacred scriptures". Exactly what texts should be classified as "sacred scriptures" is not specified in the command quoted by Eusebius or in Eusebius' account of how he carried it out. There is no evidence that Constantine did make this clear or even if he had any definite idea himself - he most likely gave this task to Eusebius because he was known as a scholar with clear ideas of his own on what constituted "scripture" and what didn't. Which brings us to your second claim:
"The production and distribution of these tombs influenced the Christian canon"
I'm assuming you mean "tomes". We have no idea if they did *influence* the later formation of the final Canon or just relfected the later stages of that formation. The fact that Constantine seemed to think there even was a body of texts he could refer to as "the sacred scriptures" indicates that he seemed to think the questions of what texts should be included was basically settled. Eusebius knew better, but we can work out what he considered to be "scripture" from his writings, particularly *Ecclesiastical History* III.3.5-7 and III.25.1-7. The fact that the list we can extrapolate from those references overlaps that of Athanasius 30 years later tells us that the process was nearing its end, but that it was still far from complete. How much "influence" these copies had on that process, therefore, is unknown and actually unknowable.
"If they are accurate"
They aren't - see above. Don't comment on history unless you actually know what you're talking about. And if you get caught opining about stuff you haven't checked carefully, don't try to bluff your way out it. Be a rationalist.
AGAIN, I didn't claim Constantine picked out the books himself! Sigh.
----------------------
You are not to tell me what to do.
----------------------
If you think atheists are more rational than non-atheists; then I have to say you don't sound familiar with atheists. Or maybe you are trolling.
"I didn't claim Constantine picked out the books himself!"
And I didn't say you did. I was going over all the ways in which he *could* have influenced the process and showing there is little or no evidence for any of them.
"You are not to tell me what to do."
Hey, feel free to ignore my kindly advice if you like.
"If you think atheists are more rational than non-atheists; then I have to say you don't sound familiar with atheists."
Luckily for me I simply said we are *supposed* to be more rational. I can assure you I've had more than enough encounters with atheists who cling dogmatically to nonsense about history to know the gap between the ideal and the reality all too well.
Well everything I've read on the subject says Constantine had 50 bibles compiled at his behest; so I recommend readers shouldn't take anything you have to say too seriously on the matter.
f1d46c6e0e59f6eda54ad5b4f9808b25
"Bibles" implies the Canon was established and what he ordered to be produced was what people have on their shelves today. It's not that simple, as I've explained. But you don't seem to want to understand.
Still, at least you aren't totally out to lunch, like that Montero guy on this thread, who is so far out in la la land on this subject that the search parties looking for him may never return.
Ludicrous. As I said before: every single thing I've read about it (from every side of the issue I can imagine) says Constantine ordered the construction (I mean coping the pre-existing texts and putting them into one binding, which apparently was a serious task at the time) of 50 bibles; EXCEPT from you. And you have the gall to call others out to lunch.
Are you really this thick? Yes, he ordered the collection of scriptures into a kind of "Bible". But they were not the Bibles we have today. Because the Canon of the Bible was NOT YET FIXED. Try to understand before we all die of old age.
sucks when someone strawmans you huh? And you went right for the insults to boot!
Nyarlathoslap!
"Nyarlathoslap!'
Yes, like being slapped with wet lettuce.
"Then please explain the Muratorian Canon, which predates the birth of Constantine by about 100 years."
You mean the incomplete fragment which does not include all the gospels and for which a date of creation is still up for debate?
Keep digging that hole pal. The Muratorian Canon refers to four gospels and names the third and the fourth as gLuke and gJohn respectively. Given that the four gospels had been accepted as gMatt, gMark, gLuke and gJohn since at least Irenaeus' time, try presenting an actual *argument* that a canon list that accepts twenty-three of the twenty-seven works that later made the final canon somehow *didn't* accept gMatt and gMark and instead had two other gospels as its first two of four.
And while you're fighting that uphill battle, see if you can argue for a date for the Muratorian document that somehow places it during or after Constantine's time. Oh, and make sure you back all this with your extensive scholarly bibilography of experts who agree with you. Good luck.
I absolutely agree that the missing gospels are most likely Matthew and Mark. But how does that make it any less an assumption based upon critical reasoning? That's what most of these posts in this thread are. If you want to debate someone formally with citations, references and quotes then make a formal debate thread - it's that easy.
"Oh, and make sure you back all this with your extensive scholarly bibilography of experts who agree with you. Good luck."
You did it again. You just can't help yourself, can you? I am not asking you to do this, but where is your "extensive scholarly bibilography of experts"? Once more the rules only apply to everyone else.
"I absolutely agree that the missing gospels are most likely Matthew and Mark"
So there goes your objection to the Muratorian Canon.
"But how does that make it any less an assumption based upon critical reasoning? "
Who said it wasn't? And welcome to ancient history.
"where is your "extensive scholarly bibilography of experts"?
I gave you the key monograph on the subject - Bruce Metzger, *The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987). That is the acknowledged textbook on the subject and summarises and refers to all relevant scholarship on the topic. It will also explain to you why what I am saying is the position of pretty much all current scholars - the four gospels were accepted well BEFORE Constantine but the rest of the NT Canon was not established until well AFTER Constantine, so any claim he somehow set the Canon is obviously wrong. Claims his commissioning of the Eusebian collections of "sacred scripture" had some great influence on this ongoing process are conjecture, at best.
Anyone who claims Constantine set the Canon at Nicea is dead wrong. Anyone who claims he set the Canon at all are obviously wrong. This is *The Da Vinci COde* level crackpottery and atheists should know better than peddling this kind of New Age bullshit. Educate yourself better.
argumentum ad blog'ium
"argumentum ad blog'ium"
Please detail precisely what that blog article gets wrong, with full references to relevant scholarship and source materials.
@Jon the Catholic:
it's not about believing it, the history isn't for you to believe, or you don't believe it, the Council of Nicaea happened, there are records and you know where the original Bible came from.
Yes, The Council of Nicaea happened... and it had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible. I posted a link above for you to check out. I actually found it very odd that on these forums, people claim that Constantine somehow influenced which books would go into the Bible in the council of Nicaea. This isn't anything I learned from school nor found searching online.
@Jon the Catholic:
There's no problem. You see, at the end of this historical article you will see a series of bibliographical references, more than forty, which, although are in Spanish, generate a historical remnant that is quite difficult to refute.
Similarly, although the historical article is in Spanish, it's as simple as using the Google Traslator to throw that nasty piece of trash and read SOME HISTORY, which is missing.
http://www.sbmontero.es/2006/10/el-concilio-de-nicea-305-325-dc.html
¬¬)-♫
"You see, at the end of this historical article you will see a series of bibliographical references, more than forty, which, although are in Spanish, generate a historical remnant that is quite difficult to refute."
Please show us which of these references cites a primary source or sources that talk about the canon of the Bible being discussed and determined at Nicaea. If you can't, all you've done is cite an article that simply repeats the myth. While you're at it, please back up this claim with reference to source materials as well:
"The Council of Nicaea was a veritable summit bringing together the Christian leaders of Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Jerusalem and Rome, together with the highest representatives of the most representative sects and religions within the Roman Empire - Apolo, Demeter / Ceres, Dionysus / Bacchus, Janus, Jupiter / Zeus, Oannes / Dagon, Osiris and Isis and, of course, the Sol Invictus, the latter represented by the Emperor himself."
Amazing. Okay, so what exactly is the claim that all these representatives of pagan religions were at a Christian ecumenical council? Sources, citations and quotes please.
@TimONeill:
For a second I thought I understood that you are saying that all those bibliographical references are false, or that these references don't allude to what the article, which is academically accepted and has never been refuted... I know because I wrote it... it's false. Is that what you're saying? Because if that's what you're saying maybe you should take the opposite to the minutes of the Council itself... Have you read them? I do. In them appears the name of the attendees... and their religion, Do you have any explanation why the religion of the attendants appears, or why appears the religion of the Emperor as the supreme pontiff of the Unconquered Sun?
Although I will not question an attempt to refute a proven bibliography, please go ahead. I'm sure you know how to refute a demostrate reference bibliography, just read, always read first. Ahead...
ALFÖLDI, A.: The conversion of constantine and pagan Rome, Oxford, 1948.
ALLARD, P.: Julien l'Apostat, 3 vols., Roma, 1972.
ARNHEIM, M. T. W.: The Senatorial Aristocracy in the later roman Empire, Oxford, 1900.
BAIGENT & LEIGH: The Dead Sea scrolls deception, Nueva York, 1991.
BAYNES, N. H.: Constantine and the christian church, Oxford, 1972.
BIDEZ, J.: La vie de l'Empereur Julien, París, 1930.
BIONDI, B.: Il diritto romano cristiano, 3 vols., Milán, 1952 y 1953.
BOISSIER, G.: La fin du paganisme, París, 1903.
BOWLER, D.: The age of Constantine and Julian, Londres, 1978.
BREZZI, P.: La política religiosa de Constantino, Nápoles, 1965.
BURCKHARDT, J.: Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen, Stuttgart, 1929.
CAMACHO, S.: Creadores de dioses, Madrid, 2000.
CHASTAGNOL, A.: Le Bas-Empire, Paris, 1969.
DÖRRIES, D.: Dar Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Gotinga, 1954.
EHRHARDT, A.: Constantin der Grosse: Religionspolitik und Gesetzgebung, Z.S.S., 1955.
GABBA, E.: Per la storia dell'esercito romano in età imperiale, Roma, 1974.
GRAHAM L.: Deceptions and myths of the Bible, Nueva York, 1991.
GANSHOFFER, R.: L'evolution des institutions municipales en Occident et en Orient au Bas-Empire, París, 1963.
JONES, A. H. M.: Constantine and conversion of Europe, Londres, 1948.
LABBRIOLLE, P. DE; BARDY, G., Y PALANQUE, J. R.: De la paix constantinienne à al mort de Théodose, París, 1936.
MASSEY, G.: Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ or Natural Genesis and Typology of Equinoctial Christolatry, Montana, 1998.
MAYER, R.: Byzantion, Konstantinopel, Istanbul, eine genetische Stadtgeographie, Viena, 1943.
MAURICE, J.: Constantin le Grand, París, 1924.
MAZZARINO, S.: Aapetti sociali del quarto secolo. Ricerche di Storia tarda romana, Roma, 1951.
MOMIGLIANO, A.: Paganism and Christianity in the fourth Century, Londres, 1962.
NISCHER, E. V.: The army reforms of Diocletian and Constantine - Journal of Roman Studies, XIII, 1923.
PALANQUE, J. R.: Le Bas-Empire, París, 1971.
PIGANIOL, A.: La fiscalité du Bas-Empire, Journal des Savants, 1946 - L'Empereur Constantin, París, 1932 - L'Empire chrétien, París, 1947 - L'economie dirigée dans l'empire romain au IVe siècle, Scentia, serie 6, XVI, 1947.
REMONDON, R.: La crisis del Imperio romano de Marco Aurelio a Anastasio, Barcelona, 1967.
SCHWARTZ: El emperador Constantino y la Iglesia cristiana, Madrid, 1926. STEIN, E.: Historie du Bas-Empire, 2 vols., París, 1959.
STONE, M.: When God Was a Woman, Nueva York, 1978.
VAN DE BERCHEM, D.: L'armeé de Dioclétien et la reforme constantinienne, Institut Francais de Beyrouth, LVI, 1952.
VOGLE, CH.: Constance II et l'administration impériale, Estrasburgo, 1979.
VOGT, J.: Zur Frage des christlichen Einflusses auf die Gesetzgebung Konstantin, Fest. Wenger, II, 1945 - Konstantin der Grosse und sein Jahrhundert, Munich, 1960.
WAITE, C.: History of the christian religion in the year two hundred, California, 1992.
WALKER, B.: The womans enciclopedia of myths and secrets, San Francisco, 1993.
WELLS, G. A.: Did Jesus exist?, Búfalo, 1975 - The historical evidence for Jesus, Búfalo, 1988.
WHELESS, J.: Forgery in Christianity, Health Research, 1990.
" you should take the opposite to the minutes of the Council itself... Have you read them?"
If by "the minutes of the Council" you mean the statement of the Council's decisions, then yes, I have.
" In them appears the name of the attendees... and their religion, Do you have any explanation why the religion of the attendants appears, or why appears the religion of the Emperor as the supreme pontiff of the Unconquered Sun?"
Since this all seems to be some fantasy of yours, no I have no "explanation" for it. Other than the fact you have an active imagination. The Canons of the Nicean Council can be found here:
https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html
They don't contain the things you claim. So please produce these "minutes of the Council itself" that you're talking about and show us the evidence that supports your claims the Council was attended by representatives of other religions.
" I'm sure you know how to refute a demostrate reference bibliograph"
That list includes legitimate, scholarly works that just don't support the things you are claiming, along with junk by non-scholars that probably do. No-one takes lunatics like Baigent and Leigh seriously. Ditto for Massey. Or Walker. If you do, then it's very hard to take you seriously either.
@TimONeill:
No, that link only refers to the canons, and not even all of them.
Try again.
And again, if you can refute a proven bibliography, or you can refute the article, please go ahead... but if what you do is put a link to some canons that do not even show the total, instead of linking the minutes of the Council... we barely go for now.
P.D.
I assume you know how to use Google... Or not?
"Try again."
Ummm, you're the one making claims that need to be substantiated. I asked you to back up this claim with reference to primary source materials:
"The Council of Nicaea was a veritable summit bringing together the Christian leaders of Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Jerusalem and Rome, together with the highest representatives of the most representative sects and religions within the Roman Empire - Apolo, Demeter / Ceres, Dionysus / Bacchus, Janus, Jupiter / Zeus, Oannes / Dagon, Osiris and Isis and, of course, the Sol Invictus, the latter represented by the Emperor himself."
You failed to do this. Then you made some reference to a document you allege records "the minutes of the Council" which contains the information you present above. So I said "please produce these "minutes of the Council itself" that you're talking about and show us the evidence that supports your claims the Council was attended by representatives of other religions." You've failed to do that as well.
Please do it now. Put up or shut up.
No, no, sorry, who is questioning the bibliography of an article that is used academically about the Council of Nicaea and who says that he has read the minutes of the Council of Nicaea and links a biased listing of canons because he has neither damn idea of what these records are -Do you know what Elvira's Conscile was, which is where the "Catholic" canons of the Council of Nicaea came from? Of course not-, it's you, no one else is doing it for obvious reasons.
I will repeat it again, Can you refute the bibliography? Do it; Can you refute that the canons to which you refer don't come from the Council of Elvira promoted by Osio de Córdoba? Do it; Can you refute that in acts, I say well, acts, not canons, no, in acts the religion of all the congregation does not appear? Do it; Can you refute that there is even a list of those who approve the Catholic Creed and those who refuse to approve it? Do it; Can you refute that the Mitra cap is adopted as a symbol of holiness of the attendees? Do it; Can you refute that in the Council of Nicaea the quality of a sacred book is granted to the compendium of four books, I quote, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that the latter aroused a great controversy because Eusebius of Cæsarea was against its inclusion because is the only book that is from the time of Jesus, while the rest was written, as the total of the alleged gospels that were presented to the Council of Nicaea, from the second century? Do it; Can you refute that the first point in which all, I say well, all agreed was to place Christmas on the Winter Solstice, because it was a feast that unified the traditions of all religions, with the exception of those responsible for the Saturnalia who received an imperial stipend to eliminate the relaxed character that mixed the celebration and the carnival, as well as the sexual party through the streets of Rome? Do it... but, if you cannot refute anything of that because you can not refute anything without even having read acts, or having read one of the bibliographical references, or having put in context to Constantine, Osio of Cordova, Eusebius of Caesarea and the rest of attendants to the Council... my advice is that you read, that you study and stop praying.
AND OF COURSE, try again, or stop saying crap.
" who is questioning the bibliography of an article"
Again, your bibliography is a weird mixture of perfectly legitimate scholarly sources, that just don't happen to support your weird claims and some crackpot junk by lunatics like Massey, Walker, Baigent and Leigh.
The rest of your bizarre rant above would take a book to refute and I suspect that would also bounce off your crackpot skull. So how about you do this - produce these "minutes of the Council". Either link to them, quote them, cite a book (with exact page numbers) that details them or provide some proof they exist outside of your imagination.
You've been challenged to do this repeatedly and you keep failing to do it. Do it now please.
@TimONeill:
"that just don't happen to support your weird claims"... ehm... and you say that without reading the bibliography, it's an awesome statement, apart from a jerk of an imbecile incapable, start reading, and stop saying idiocy.
Ah, and stop talking about failing, that article is used in college all over Europe, and you're a poor devil, baby.
Er yup. Why can't you show us the document from the fourth century that supports your claim that priests of "Apolo, Demeter / Ceres, Dionysus / Bacchus, Janus, Jupiter / Zeus, Oannes / Dagon, Osiris and Isis" attended the Council of Nicea?
Explain.
Jon the Catholic - "Do people really believe that Constantine was the one who had the Bible made?"
Don't you? Doesn't everyone capable of weighing probability and evidence?
EDIT: Ordered, funded and approved as opposed to actually writing it, but yes, responsible for it being made.
Pages