The Council of Nicea

[perplexedseeker]

Oh dear, oh dear. It looks like the BBC's in-house version of wikipedia (h2g2) has picked up an infestation of Dawkins-ites. Though maybe it's not so surprising since it was started by Douglas Adams, who I gather was a very good friend of D. In particular, there is this article about the council of Nicea:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487

In the bad old days, I pretty much believed what this guy does, that the Bible was "edited" by the Council for political reasons in order to instate Christianity as a form of social control. Having seen the mess that they make of other parts of Christian history, though, I've recanted and would like to form a more balanced opinion.

Would anyone care to take a crack at refuting some of this article's statements (or linking me to another site that does?)

[unkleE]

Hi, I'm not a historian, but even I can see a few flaws in that article.

the Gospel of Philip, which had been perfectly creditable until this point, was cut from the Bible.

I have just finished reading "Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels" by Craig Evans, Professor of NT at Acadia College Nova Scotia. He is a well-credentialled and recognised scholar, though probably on the more conservative side. He says "Philip" was likely composed about 150, and he does not include it among the non-canonical gospels that some scholars argue might be authentic. i.e. the church appears to have had very good reason to have rejected this gospel.

Birth and Christmas ..... Let's consider a few historical figures for a moment:

The article goes on to list a bunch of mythical figures, with only one (to my knowledge) being historical - the Buddha. That sort of inaccuracy makes it hard to trust what follows.

I would not doubt that Constantine did some dodgy things - whether out of superstition or Machiavellian cunning I couldn't say - but that doesn't mean someone can make baseless or speculative assertions without offering scholarly evidence. I'm a bit surprised that the BBC puts its good name to writing of that quality.

[bjorn]

The article is so riddled with glaring errors that it deserves The Clueless Atheist Award, whatever name we should coin for it.

[joel]

It's amazing how much misinformation gets passed around with the alleged pagan parallels by self-proclaimed "free thinkers." Mithra, for example, was born out of a rock. Not from a virgin.

[praefectusurbanus]

Tim O'Neill covered virtually all of these absurd myths about the Nicean Council at his "History vs. The Da Vinci Code" website:

www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/chapterfiftyfive.htm#constnt


The article mentions Sol Invictus in the first paragraph and then demonstrates a complete lack of research on said belief by asserting that Mithras was born on that date and ignoring the Roman feast of Dies Solis. Argh. First it was nutty claims that December 25th was the birth of Osiris, and now they've shifted it to Mithras? This is all getting rather pathetic. And really? "Virgin" birth? I suppose the rock he sprang from is "virgin" in that it never had sexual relations, but that sort of goes with being a nonbiological mish-mash of minerals.

[hawkinthesnow]

"virgin on the ridiculous" perhaps?

[unkleE]

Nov 18, 2009 20:29:13 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

"virgin on the ridiculous" perhaps?

Groan!! ;D