will he spend one minute behind bars.........?

Records do exist, and you accept as much in your #2 by admitting that we have records of the Constantinean Bibles existing. What we don't have are the Bibles themselves or any other record of the result of the discussion, and that's generally due to the whole thing being very far in the past, and most likely due more specifically to the Inquisition's concerted efforts to destroy any anti-Tridentine sources about a thousand years later.

Not at all. They had to decide what to include and what not. How could they have produced a book without settling what was in it?

Gladly, because this is a pet subject of mine. The word had been used since at least the first century BC in the general sense of 'authorised list' -- my favourite being Apollonius Dyskolos, or Apollonius the Grumpy, who got very cross indeed at anyone who deviated from the lists in the correct order, saying especially of those who believed that it was mere convention rather than natural truth to assume that the beta comes after the alpha that "there are those who believe this, but they are the kind of person who are unable to keep order in any aspect of their lives and will never amount to anything". It was used in that same sense up to and including during the Council of Nicea, with several different canones being discussed: a canon of justified beliefs, also known as the Nicean Credo; a canon of emissaries, i.e. a list of delegates; a canon of holy days, rendering a clerical calendar; and a set of canon laws. However, that broad use of the term ends there, and in our next source in 367, Athanasius uses the same word (in the participle, kanonizomena) as a clearly established terminus technicus to refer to the question of the list of books in the Bible.

I didn't say "we have no records of the Council of Nicaea". I said that "there is no record of any discussion of the canon of scripture at Nicaea". And there's not. Because they didn't address that topic. This is very universal, basic "Church History 101" knowledge that seems to have gone out the window because of Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code. No scholar of Christian History [including the secular scholars] would place ANY WEIGHT AT ALL on the argument that Nicaea had ANYTHING to do with the Canon of Scripture. It's simply historically false.

By never having all that much of a controversy about what ought to be in it in the first place.

You seem to think that because Constantine said "Make some Bibles" that there was ever any confusion about what was meant by that.

You are throwing out the baby with the Holy Water. I have already pointed out that the canon was neither controversial nor finally settled at Nicea. But to claim that they had no discussion of the canon is unwarranted, and in fact clearly false as long as you do not deny the existence of the Constantinean Bibles.

I didn't claim there was much of a controversy. But it is clear that they had no settled list -- that didn't come until Trent -- and yet they used a list, so they made one, and they called it the canon for the first time.

I expect better logic from you. The fact that Constantine said "make some Bibles" doesn't not in any way, shape, or form suggest, hint, or imply that the Canon of Scripture was a topic for discussion at the Council of Nicaea.

They didn't use the word "canon" even once to refer to the list of "canonical books of the Bible" at Nicaea, yet you insist that they must have talked it about it, for some reason.

This is weird.

No church history scholars believe that the Canon of Scripure was a topic of discussion at Nicaea. Not one! Not even the secular scholars.

Once again, you cannot produce a book without deciding what is included. There was no settled list, so they had to actually make a decision. And the meaning of the word canon changed at just that time, a point you completely ignored above.

You seem so mesmerized by the false stories about the canon being a huge controversy and then settled at Nicea that you cannot recognise that this is a completely different question.

Just because the issue was not resolved does not mean it wasn't discussed. What was discussed was one group's version of "divinely inspired" gospels vs those that that group felt were not "divinely inspired". But, there were many groups there. Some reports of up to 300 or more people. This group walked away with ONE group's version.

You have to read all the documents referenced, not just skim the overview and skip to the end.

You don't believe Catholicism is part of your religion, yet you dismiss out of hand what they dismissed.

What then, are your beliefs based on?

Actually the fact that it wasn't discussed means it wasn't discussed.

The issue was not discussed at the Council of Nicaea. That's historical fact. Period.

Quit getting your church history from The Da Vinci Code.

There isn't one correct thing in what you just said. I honestly don't know what to do with you. It's like you 1) can't read 2) can't understand anything you read 3) think things that say the opposite of what you believe are actually supporting your nonsense.

You are not right on this issue. Everything you've posted goes directly against what you are claiming, yet you keep claiming it. STOP. You're being SILLY.

Non sequitur. The question is, "was this decided AT NICAEA?". That answer is, "NO". Not only was it not decided at Nicaea, it wasn't even discussed at Nicaea. That's a historical fact. Stop it. Stop being silly. Nicaea had NOTHING TO DO with the Canon of Scripture.

@Sean the Puritan meet @Jenee.

I know, I've been here a long time. It's just that some people really tax even a patient man.

Usually I just watch Jenee being Jenee to other people's misfortune. *sigh*

I still think you are insisting on a misunderstanding here, but if you really mean this as stated, show your evidence. It would have to be strangely specific. For instance, the people taxed with making the Bibles obviously had to discuss the Bibles, and at any time before Trent, that included deciding which texts to put in it; so I suppose you have some source that has them finishing that discussion before leaving for Nicaea and then taking some oath not to mention it there for some unlikely reason? This sounds very silly and entirely unnecessary to me, but if you are sure that this is what you mean, I am interested to learn more about it. Such a story is not mentioned in any history of Nicaea I have seen so far.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

Constantine also called the first seven ecumenical councils (one of which was concurrent with the council of Nicea at the same location with largely the same members) as well as the Council. Those were indeed all about establishing orthodoxy and deciding which books to include, which books to leave out, and which to edit. Edit they did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

A link for Sean so he can see how wrong he is.

Good to know, but I think most of us wouldn't take moral advice from a guy with links to a male supremacy group proudly displayed in his signature.

What are you referring to?

The church in the Puritans signature.

You think of "men ruling their homes" in terms of "dominance" rather than one of "service".

Muhammed says similar.
What do you think of the treatment of women in third world Muslim countries?

Can you succinctly explain to me exactly what your claim is that you're trying to push so vigorously, since you think I am "insisting on a misunderstanding"?

The original claim was that "The Council of Nicaea determined which books belong in the bible and which do not". I've been stating all along that this is a gross historical error. The question of the canonicity and noncanonicity of various books of the Bible was neither raised, discussed, nor decided at the Council of Nicaea. This is historical fact. Both myself and Jenee (albeit unwittingly) have already posted links that state this plainly, since this is a very common misconception.

You seem to think that just because one of the things that came out of Nicaea was a "retail order" so to speak for fifty copies of the Bible somehow means that the issue of what the Bible was and what it contained must therefore have been raised somehow at Nicaea, which is does logically follow. There was really no question at the time of Nicaea as to what the Bible was and what it consisted of.

I'm not sure what you're lacking in your church history education here.

You didn't even read the links you supplied, did you?

1. "Constantine also called the first seven ecumenical councils"
False. The first seven ecumenical councils took place over a span of 462 years. Constantine therefore would have been quite old during the Second Council of Nicaea (the seventh ecumenical council).

2. "one of which was concurrent with the council of Nicea at the same location with largely the same members".
False. Nothing in either link you posted even remotely says anything of the sort.

3. "Those were indeed all about establishing orthodoxy and deciding which books to include, which books to leave out, and which to edit."
Partially true. Each ecumenical council was called to address certain topics of Orthodoxy. None of the first seven ecumenical councils had anything to do with "which books to include, which books to leave out, and which to edit".
READ YOUR OWN LINKS!

4. "Edit they did."
What do you mean, "Edit they did"? Every copy of every book of the Bible we have, whether very ancient, or very recent, says SUBSTANTIALLY the same thing. Virtually every difference from hand written copy to hand written copy in the days before mechanical printing are easily explained by copyist errors of various types. There is zero evidence at all that there was any kind of decision ever made to alter the contents of the various books of the Bible.

Seriously. READ YOUR OWN LINKS. You were not right about hardly anything.

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a weeks.

Besides, you could have just stopped with "I think most of us wouldn't take moral advice." and that would be about as accurate as anything else I've ever heard from you guys.

Sean, did you read the link I provided about the first seven ecumenical councils of which the council of Nicea was the first? It will show you where you are wrong, if you bother to read it.

It should read "Constintine called the first of the first seven ecumenical councils". Obvious typo on my part. You are wrong about what happened during the council of Nicea though.

@Dinner, did YOU read the link that YOU provided about the first seven ecumenical councils of which the council of Nicaea was the first? It will show you where you are wrong, if you bother to read it.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. None. Zero. Zip. You're being a fool. Stop. For the love of (whatever it is that you love), just stop.

Which part of their policy did I misquote?

Nicaea didn't settle the canon, but the canon was definitely discussed at Nicaea, and the issue of the canon was almost certainly named 'canon' at Nicaea.

Yes. That is the story made famous by Voltaire, and you are correct that it is false.

Here, you are wrong. There was no consensus as to which books belong in the Bible at the time. Every time someone produced a Bible, as they did for Constantine at Nicaea, they had to discuss which books (and versions!) to include this time. It was not considered a huge problem and there was no attempt to settle it forever at Nicaea, as no-one considered it in need of a final settlement. But you seem to think they had a consensual list of the Bible's contents at the time, and that is just wrong. Different Bibles from this time and before differ in their contents. Athanasius, a generation later, refers to it as a well-known issue -- not some big theological problem, but just something that is open for debate.

In other words, the idea that there is some kind of unity to the Bible beyond the unity of each of the books, many of which might or might not be included, is not around at Nicaea, and won't really be for another thousand years. In fact -- but here speculation comes in -- I think there is a good case to be made that it only arose in the Middle Ages when most of the people talking about the Bible couldn't read it, and just assumed it was this one constant thing that the people who could read it carried around with them or had locked up in their libraries.

A Great Article by a Renowned Scholar of the Biblical Canon

Another Good Article

"Fascinating".

Do I understand correctly, @Sean the Puritan, that you believe there was a consensus about the contents of the Bible in the time of Nicea? That all the Bibles at the time contained the same texts?