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.
You really love doing this eh?
Let me break it down for you.
The theory goes that Emperor Constantine had asked for copies of scripture to be produced. Fine. Let's accept that.
The theory further states that it was due to this command that the books we know in the Bible were written. Let me put in the entire text here:
"The only thing that proposes that is that Constantine had asked for copies of scripture to be produced (kinda like how you'd ask a photocopy place to produce 50 copies of a lecture)."
Notice the words you omitted. "(kinda like how you've ask a photocopy place to produce 50 copies of a lecture)". "To produce", as is to write, is different from "To produce", as is to make copies. The strained interpretation I mention comes from people taking it as to write the Bible.
I simply assume now that you'll continue being a troll so go ahead.
I never said that, I don't believe that, and I made statements to make that clear. What a nasty strawman.
I never actually said YOU said it. I was referring to a theory mykcob states very often on these forums. I'm sorry for the confusion.
So what do you think happened, nyar?
In your post 73715, a reply to my post 73637 you said:
bold added by me
---------------------------------------
I already answered that question:
"If you mean compiled, then probably so."
This wasn't even the case. If we're looking at Nicaea, the canon of scripture wasn't even discussed. It was Carthage and Hippo that decided on the final canon of scripture.
-----------------------------------------
So now you are firmly in crackpot land with your friend Tim. Every source I've ever read, says that Constantine ordered the compilation of 50 bibles.
Stranger still, you recently referred to Constantine's order to have them produced:
If seems when your needs require Constantine to have ordered the construction of bibles, you accept it; but when it doesn't suit your needs, you reject it. Which has some eerie similarities to the non-sense Tim tried to pull.
It wasn’t the case that he ordered the Bible to be compiled. He asked for copies of scripture to be produced.
What this scripture is is not known to us. Before Hippo and Carthage, several local churches recognized different books as canonical. What Constantine would’ve gotten (his 50 copies) would’ve been what one or several local churches thought to be canonical. It’s also quite possible that what he asked for was only the New Testament. It definitely was not binding on Christians in a sense that they had to follow what Constantine ordered to be in the Bible.
Another strawman/red herring.
---------------------
At least four copies are thought to still exist.
V.S.
There you go! The keyword is there. You just choose not to see it. “DIRECT DESCENDANT”.
Like what I’ve been telling you, the establishment of the canon of the Bible started way before Constantine and ended way after his death. There wasn’t just one version of the Bible’s Table of Contents which was decided in Nicaea.
See Muratorian fragment which is dated to 170 AD. This is the earliest “Table of Contents” of the Bible we have. From that point up to Hippo and Carthage, the contents changed slightly to either include or exclude certain books from the canon of scripture. Since Nicaea is obviously in between these two points in time, it would makes sense that whatever scripture that Constantine has ordered to be produced (as in copied), would naturally be an “ancestor” of the version of the Bible we have today.
Yet another strawman/red herring.
---------------------------------------------------
Your "friend" Tim told us it was completed before Constantine's birth. Of course he also told us it was completed after his death.
---------------------------------------------------
Can you answer a question for me?
Yes or No: Did Constantine order pre-existing Christian texts to be compiled into a single volume and the production of 50 copies of that volume?
"Yes or No: Did Constantine order pre-existing Christian texts to be compiled into a single volume and the production of 50 copies of that volume?"
Yes. This, order, however, does not disprove my point that the canon of scripture was decided upon gradually. Btw, by canon, I mean the books that the church decided would go into the Bible.
Short disclaimer: Tim isn't a "friend". I don't even know the guy. I just chanced upon his blog.
No, Jon, you are wrong. The bible took about roughly a month to create. In fact Jon, there wasn't a bible, only folklore. There was a huge schism between christians. Many didn't believe that jesus was the son of god because he was born. They were the Arians. The Council decided on a holy trinity that included jesus as the son of god and banished Arians as a result. More than 300 men attended and participated in the council with over 1000 scribes all financed by and presided over by Constantine I.
The council came together near 1 April 325 ADE and concluded sometime in May of that year.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Nicaea-Christianity-325
Funnily enough, the link you provided doesn't even mention the canon of scripture as an agenda point. It goes:
Arianism
Nicene Creed
Date of Easter
Other Pastoral Issues
The End
Mykcob, you really need to improve your research. There are some resources out there that are good atheist resources. The ones you cite most of the time, throw away most of history and try to rewrite it. The reliable ones you cite, however, don't support your views at all. If they do, it's through a very strained interpretation.
Nope Jon it is a source that you don't like because it totally and accurately dispells the bullshit and all theist try to push on every one!
The only sources I don't like are the ones which dispel lies. Your theories on Constantine, Nicaea, and Jesus being a mythical character are what they call fringe theories. Even when they're proven to be false, you cling on to them because they're all you have.
@JoC
They are not lies and they are not fringe theories. They are fact borne out by the evidence provided over and over. You don't want it to be true but that is beside the point. Constantine needed a one god religion with him head of that church so he adopted christianity. He convened and presided over the Council of Nicea which produced the first bibles. Those are just facts that you desperately don't want to accept.
Mykcob, the only reason I don't accept these crazy theories of yours is because they are lies. You have every right to disagree with any religion in the world. But do so for the right reasons. Don't base you opinions on lies.
Mykcob, the only reason I don't accept these crazy theories of yours is because they are lies. You have every right to disagree with any religion in the world. But do so for the right reasons. Don't base you opinions on lies.
Mykcob, the only reason I don't accept these crazy theories of yours is because they are lies. You have every right to disagree with any religion in the world. But do so for the right reasons. Don't base you opinions on lies.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 24 hours ago you said that wasn't the case:
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
/e Also, about 2 weeks ago when I made that statement to which you basically just agreed to; you recommend me that lunatic's site to clear up my "misconceptions". Apparently my "misconceptions" have managed to leak into your brain now too.
And you're twisting my words again. When I originally asked if Constantine was the one who had the Bible made, you said, "compiled"... in relation to it being made. This was not the case. Constantine had nothing to do with picking the books that belonged to the Bible.
But more recently, we focused on him having asked for copies to be produced (compiled). This, I can agree with.
Well you certainly are making it easy. Look at your last post. You told us he didn't compile it, then told us he did.
You gotta look at text and context and take these things together, my friend.
When we first talked about compiling, it was in the context of Constantine having an active hand in making the Bible - not true.
When we had cleared it up and said that the compilation was done without influence from Constantine in the actual compilation (he simply ordered it), then I could agree with you. - true.
You gotta look at text and context and take these things together, my friend.
When we first talked about compiling, it was in the context of Constantine having an active hand in making the Bible - not true.
When we had cleared it up and said that the compilation was done without influence from Constantine in the actual compilation (he simply ordered it), then I could agree with you. - true.
You gotta look at text and context and take these things together, my friend.
When we first talked about compiling, it was in the context of Constantine having an active hand in making the Bible - not true.
When we had cleared it up and said that the compilation was done without influence from Constantine in the actual compilation (he simply ordered it), then I could agree with you. - true.
Another strawman. Worse still I make it very clear I didn't claim that, more than once.
Context, Nyar. Context. Read the words in relation to each other.
I said, "When I originally asked if Constantine was the one who had the Bible made, you said, "compiled"... in relation to it being made. This was not the case. Constantine had nothing to do with picking the books that belonged to the Bible."
I was explaining the context in which I said what I said.
I said Constantine had the bible compiled; which you can Tim have both agreed with and disagreed with. I didn't say he chose the books himself (in fact I said the opposite). At this point you and Tim have straw-manned me so many times I should go on the record and say: I don't believe Constantine actually sewed the bindings himself, I don't believe he dipped the pen (or whatever) into the ink, and I don't believe he slaughter the cows to get the materials.
Okay. What do you say did he actually do?
Did he somehow affect whether directly or indirectly what books would go into the Bible?
Did he have new books written to be included in scripture?
Or did he simply ask for copies to be made?
Pages