Do people just believe the "Constantine wrote the Bible" thing because they want to believe it?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

That's literally the only reason I can think of at this point. That conspiracy theory has been debunked so many times it's hard for me to believe someone just wouldn't know better at this point.

 

[BluePhantom]

My guess is people think that because someone told them that's what happened and they accepted it blindly without researching it. It's really not all that surprising. Most people (Christian or non-Christian) really know very little about the history and development of Christianity. All one needs to do is take a quick tour of these boards to discover that many Christians have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about. The atheists don't fare much better.

 

[irosie91]

My guess is people think that because someone told them that's what happened and they accepted it blindly without researching it. It's really not all that surprising. Most people (Christian or non-Christian) really know very little about the history and development of Christianity. All one needs to do is take a quick tour of these boards to discover that many Christians have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about. The atheists don't fare much better.

I have never encountered anyone who claimed "CONSTANTINE WROTE THE BIBLE" Most people know that the NT is a compilation of writings-----in fact
originally in various languages ---COMPILED and Edited by the Council of Nicea
approximately 325 AD-----UNDER THE AEGIS of Constantine who was EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. I am not sure that you fare much better than the most ------unlearned, blue phantom

 

[BluePhantom]

My guess is people think that because someone told them that's what happened and they accepted it blindly without researching it. It's really not all that surprising. Most people (Christian or non-Christian) really know very little about the history and development of Christianity. All one needs to do is take a quick tour of these boards to discover that many Christians have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about. The atheists don't fare much better.

I have never encountered anyone who claimed "CONSTANTINE WROTE THE BIBLE" Most people know that the NT is a compilation of writings-----in fact
originally in various languages ---COMPILED and Edited by the Council of Nicea
approximately 325 AD-----UNDER THE AEGIS of Constantine who was EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. I am not sure that you fare much better than the most ------unlearned, blue phantom

The Council of Nicea did not compile nor edit the fucking the canon irosie. Jesus. That's right up there with the Constantine bullshit.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

My guess is people think that because someone told them that's what happened and they accepted it blindly without researching it. It's really not all that surprising. Most people (Christian or non-Christian) really know very little about the history and development of Christianity. All one needs to do is take a quick tour of these boards to discover that many Christians have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about. The atheists don't fare much better.

I have never encountered anyone who claimed "CONSTANTINE WROTE THE BIBLE" Most people know that the NT is a compilation of writings-----in fact
originally in various languages ---COMPILED and Edited by the Council of Nicea
approximately 325 AD-----UNDER THE AEGIS of Constantine who was EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. I am not sure that you fare much better than the most ------unlearned, blue phantom

1. The Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were two completely separate polities. The latter, over which Constantine ruled, was the eastern remnant of the ancient Roman Empire. The former was created on December 25, 800 CE with the crowning of the Frankish king Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne) by Pope Leo III under the authority of the fraudulent Donation of Constantine.
2. The First Council of Nicaea, the one we're talking about, was convened to deal with the Arian Heresy. Arius was a priest in Alexandria who had been teaching a nontrinitarian version of Christianity in which Jesus was simply a man with no divine nature. His beliefs began spreading rapidly and the church hierarchy felt it necessary to confront him directly, which was why a council was called. The most notable real event at the council was when the debate had become so heated that St. Nicholas punched (or possibly slapped) Arius in the face. A second important matter it settled was the standardization of the date for Easter. There is no record of the council even touching on the Biblical canon in any way let alone compiling and editing any of its books.
3. The development of the Bible was actually a centuries long, complex process. Some councils that did concern themselves with that task include the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage.

 

[irosie91]

My guess is people think that because someone told them that's what happened and they accepted it blindly without researching it. It's really not all that surprising. Most people (Christian or non-Christian) really know very little about the history and development of Christianity. All one needs to do is take a quick tour of these boards to discover that many Christians have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about. The atheists don't fare much better.

I have never encountered anyone who claimed "CONSTANTINE WROTE THE BIBLE" Most people know that the NT is a compilation of writings-----in fact
originally in various languages ---COMPILED and Edited by the Council of Nicea
approximately 325 AD-----UNDER THE AEGIS of Constantine who was EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. I am not sure that you fare much better than the most ------unlearned, blue phantom

1. The Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were two completely separate polities. The latter, over which Constantine ruled, was the eastern remnant of the ancient Roman Empire. The former was created on December 25, 800 CE with the crowning of the Frankish king Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne) by Pope Leo III under the authority of the fraudulent Donation of Constantine.
2. The First Council of Nicaea, the one we're talking about, was convened to deal with the Arian Heresy. Arius was a priest in Alexandria who had been teaching a nontrinitarian version of Christianity in which Jesus was simply a man with no divine nature. His beliefs began spreading rapidly and the church hierarchy felt it necessary to confront him directly, which was why a council was called. The most notable real event at the council was when the debate had become so heated that St. Nicholas punched (or possibly slapped) Arius in the face. A second important matter it settled was the standardization of the date for Easter. There is no record of the council even touching on the Biblical canon in any way let alone compiling and editing any of its books.
3. The development of the Bible was actually a centuries long, complex process. Some councils that did concern themselves with that task include the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage.

yes SO? your little discussion of semantics is meaningless in the context of
HOW THE BIBLE WAS MADE. -----there is a history-----of course there is a
history----- SO? the fact remains that the NT was created under the STRAIN
of political strife. Anyone who knows anything about the history of that time----
KNOWS that. Anyone who ever read the NT with a bit of knowledge of the times--
also knows that. Anyone whoever read the NT with any knowledge of the situation of the jews of JUDEA under Roman rule------knows it too

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

yes SO? your little discussion of semantics is meaningless in the context of
HOW THE BIBLE WAS MADE. -----there is a history-----of course there is a
history----- SO? the fact remains that the NT was created under the STRAIN
of political strife. Anyone who knows anything about the history of that time----
KNOWS that. Anyone who ever read the NT with a bit of knowledge of the times--
also knows that. Anyone whoever read the NT with any knowledge of the situation of the jews of JUDEA under Roman rule------knows it too

The New Testament was compiled by the pre-schism Church. Parts, both verses and entire books, were removed from the corpus by councils. That much is true. What isn't true is the claim that this was done at the First Council of Nicaea, by Constantine, or for the reasons the conspiracy theory gives.. The history matters if you're going to discuss its history. You can't just throw it all out and make up your own.

 

[irosie91]

yes SO? your little discussion of semantics is meaningless in the context of
HOW THE BIBLE WAS MADE. -----there is a history-----of course there is a
history----- SO? the fact remains that the NT was created under the STRAIN
of political strife. Anyone who knows anything about the history of that time----
KNOWS that. Anyone who ever read the NT with a bit of knowledge of the times--
also knows that. Anyone whoever read the NT with any knowledge of the situation of the jews of JUDEA under Roman rule------knows it too

The New Testament was compiled by the pre-schism Church. Parts, both verses and entire books, were removed from the corpus by councils. That much is true. What isn't true is the claim that this was done at the First Council of Nicaea, by Constantine, or for the reasons the conspiracy theory gives.. The history matters if you're going to discuss its history. You can't just throw it all out and make up your own.

you are complicating a fairly simple history------the NT was "compiled"-----more
accurately ---pieced together from existing writings, heavily redacted and edited
by -----the leaders and scholars of that which was at the time THE HOLY ROMAN
EMPIRE. Anyone who has actually read and understands even passingly the
tenor of ROMAN CULTURE can grasp the fact that it was made to conform to the
culture and ambitions of the holy roman empire. You want to focus on some theory that Constantine on his very own did it? Obviously he did not-----but historically ---he does, very much---represent -----as a single person-----the tenor
of the culture of the ''holy roman empire" at that time-------kinda like George
Washington represents the tenor of USA culture in 1776. In sum------
you are quibbling

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

you are complicating a fairly simple history------the NT was "compiled"-----more
accurately ---pieced together from existing writings, heavily redacted and edited
by -----the leaders and scholars of that which was at the time

I'm not sure that "heavily" would be an appropriate adverb here, but yes. I didn't deny that the New Testament was compiled from existing writings by Church scholars. In fact, I pointed you to two councils that were convened to do just that. Where did you get your information about this history? Can you name a book or writer? Keep in mind that, say, Eusebius of Caesarea is a better source for this than Dan Brown.

THE HOLY ROMAN
EMPIRE. Anyone who has actually read and understands even passingly the
tenor of ROMAN CULTURE can grasp the fact that it was made to conform to the
culture and ambitions of the holy roman empire.

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't the Byzantine Empire. They were two completely separate things. The former was German. The latter was Greek. The former existed in Central Europe. The latter existed in the Balkans and the western part of Anatolia. The former was created in 800. The latter was simply the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire under Christianity. It's like trying to insist that Mexico and Poland are the same country because they're both Catholic. It makes me question what you've been reading, to be totally honest.

You want to focus on some theory that Constantine on his very own did it? Obviously he did not-----but historically ---he does, very much---represent -----as a single person-----the tenor
of the culture of the ''holy roman empire" at that time-------kinda like George
Washington represents the tenor of USA culture in 1776. In sum------
you are quibbling

In sum, I'm explaining to you that he presided over a church council at the city of Nicaea convened to discuss a budding non-Trinitarian heresy that threatened church power and unity.