On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 1 May, 16:35, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
>> Roger Pearse wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr, 08:19, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
>>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>>> ("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
>>>> These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
>>>> to be in the New Testament. Â
>>
>>> The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. Â The
>>> 4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
>>> right back as far as it goes.
>>
>> Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
>> Mark so that is not quite correct.
>
>Um, if Matthew was written ca. 80 AD, then you are saying Luke and
>John were written between 180 AD and 280 AD? This is absurd. There
>are shed-loads of quotations from them both before those dates. There
>are commentaries on them from 200 AD! There's even a bit of a
>physical manuscript dated to ca. 125 AD.
>
>But I don't quite see what this wild stuff has to do with my comment.
>
>>> I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
>>> got suspicious. Â It sounded wrong, based on what I knew ofTertullian
>>> and the ante-Nicene fathers. Â So I went out and hunted down all the
>>> primary sources on the council. Â You can consult them here:
>>
>>
>>> I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
>>> hadn't missed any.
>>
>>>> The council also voted as to whether women were humans. Â
>>
>>> What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
>>> thing. Â Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.
>>
>> This is an interesting assumption. Â Why would you insult them to suggest
>> this? Â ...
>
>Come, this won't do. You know very well why this claim about the
>Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
>is intended as a smear. Either produce evidence for your claim or
>retract it, hey?
>
>>>> The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects
>>
>>> No, I'm afraid it was not. Â Christianity was not split into sects at
>>> that date. Â Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
>>> Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
>>> of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
>>> Easter.
>>
>> No, there were some severe differences.
>
>Evidence?
>
>> And the sects still do not agree on the date for easter for example.
>
>Which 'sects' did not agree on this? Name them.
>
>The reality is that Christians in the East and West, who were all in
>communion with each other, did not celebrate it at the same time, for
>historical reasons. That is one reason why they wanted to get together
>and work out an agreement. There was no quarrel between the bishops
>of Rome and Alexandria on this; they just didn't have an agreed way to
>do it.
>
>> They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
>> gosphel of thomas. Â Someone
>> had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
>> and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.
>
>Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
>text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)
>
>Seriously, all this is bunk. I have given you a link to all the
>ancient texts that refer in any way to the council of Nicaea. None of
>them contain the above story.
>
>>>> ... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
>>>> are terrible discrepancies between them.
>>
>>> This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
>>> (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
>>> spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
>>> the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.
>>
>> Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)
>
>None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.
>
>>> All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
>>> all want to have the right raw *data*? Â I know that I do. Â I hope that
>>> helps.
>>
>> You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
>> about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
>> science and religion.
>
>I have no opinion on George's theory (I can't take any interest in
>such things), but it sounds a bit odd.
>
>All the best,
>
>Roger Pearse
>
>
[Hammond]
Caution Roger, Doug claims he's a "Physics PhD",
however, the low intellectual, and decidedly non-scientific
content of his posts indicates that he is an applied physics
technician at best, and OBVIOUSLY is an aggravated and
snooty anti-religious heckler.
Again, my long experience with this type of personality
shows them to be utterly INCORRIGIBLE and resistant to any
logical or factual argument.
The fact that he is unable to read and comprehebnd the
S.P.O.G. which has been peer published and copy posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
demonstrates theat he is NOT competent in graduate level
physics.... in fact, lacking any verification of his
credentials or even his real name, odds are that he is in
fact a CRACKPOT and a COMPLETELY FAKE and an IMPOSTER.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
