Helping modern Christians connect with the historical roots of the ancient Christian faith. Debunker of Conspiracy Theories
Birmingham, AL
Joined February 2018
- Tweets156K
- Following1K
- Followers2.3K
- Likes46.4K
Pinned Tweet
The amount of misinformation and Conspiracy Theories surrounding the Canonization of the Bible is astounding.
So I thought I would dispel some common myths and then give the REAL History of how the Bible came to be in the form we have it today.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Pope Sylvester I did not attend the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. He was represented by two Roman presbyters (priests), Vitus (also called Vito or Victor) and Vincentius. His advanced age is traditionally given as the reason for his absence.
There are three important historical distinctions:
Who convened the council? Emperor Constantine, not Pope Sylvester.
Who represented Rome? Vitus and Vincentius, who signed the council's decisions on Sylvester's behalf.
Who presided? Most historians identify Hosius of Córdoba, a bishop from Spain, as the likely presiding ecclesiastical figure.
And no, contrary to Roman Catholic prop, there is no historical evidence that he was acting as a papal legate.
Try again. Maybe use history instead of Wikipedia.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
The Council of Nicaea did not choose the Bible.
It is the most repeated claim about the canon, and no record from the council supports it.
binaryveritas.com/essays/nic…
Thomas Dierson retweeted
🚨 NO — THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA DID NOT REMOVE THE BOOK OF ENOCH FROM YOUR BIBLE.
That claim is trending again.
And it is FALSE.
Nicaea (AD 325) dealt with who Jesus is and with church order.
It did NOT hold a vote to "delete" Enoch from a finished Bible.
Hear this from a servant of God: if you love Scripture, stop repeating internet myths about Scripture.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
— Acts 17:11 (NKJV)
Jude can mention Enoch the man.
That does NOT make every later book bearing Enoch's name the Protestant canon.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)
God's Word does not need conspiracy clickbait to stay powerful.
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."
— Proverbs 30:5-6 (NKJV)
Before you repost a "hidden Bible" claim, open the real Bible and CHECK it.
"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
— 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV)
Not a believer? Start with Jesus in the Gospels — not with viral "lost books."
📖 Open your Bible today. Ask: "What does GOD say?"
🔍 Share truth, not myths.
🔁 Repost if you refuse to traffic in fake church history.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Was Peter a Roman? Or Thomas when he said “my Lord and my God”. Were Justin Martyr , Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ambrose of Milan all at the council of Nicea ? They ALL professed God in Trinity. Instead of listening to stupid Muslim apologists do some research.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
No one can tell me one thing about Tommy Tuberville’s policies, effort to try and lower gas prices, or his effort to cut taxes. Y’all literally voted for him because he’s republican and a famous guy y’all know. The rest of the country calls us rednecks and idiots because of this.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Now you are a biblical scholar ?
The idea that the Council of Nicaea omitted or voted to remove the Book of Enoch from the biblical canon is a common historical misconception.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD did not deal with or determine the Old or New Testament canon.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
The Council of Nicaea (held in 325 CE) did not vote on, determine, or debate the biblical canon; its primary focus was addressing the Arian controversy and the nature of Christ
The Book of Enoch was never accepted into the Hebrew Bible, and was never considered canon.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
The council of Nicaea didn't affirm what was and wasn't scripture. It laid out some administrative rulings and was mostly concerned with affirming the deity of Christ.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
@realannapaulina
The Council of Nicaea did not omit the Book of Enoch or decide the biblical canon.
Its 20 canons deal only with church discipline, Arianism, and the date of Easter. No mention of the Bible or Enoch appears in the records.
Sources:
• earlychurchtexts.com/public/…
• ps.edu/council-nicaea-biblic…
• thegospelcoalition.org/artic…
1 Enoch is pseudepigrapha. It was never part of the Jewish canon or the mainstream Christian canon (only accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church).
The claim that Nicaea chose or removed Bible books is a later myth.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Did you learn theology from The Da Vinci Code?
The Council of Nicaea did NOT established the Christian biblical canon — that claim has been factually proven wrong.
The Book of Enoch was rejected by Judaism long before the canonical Bible was ratified in AD 397.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
The Council of Nicaea did not declare a scriptural canon. That is why Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church each have different variations in their Old Testament canon.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
The fascinating part is that the Council of Nicaea never decided the biblical canon. That is a popular historical misconception. The Book of Enoch's exclusion from most Christian canons happened through a much longer process of debate and acceptance. Interestingly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church preserved it as scripture, and the New Testament book of Jude even quotes from it. There's far more to the history of biblical canon than most people realise.
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Look Luna, I'm a fan of the Book of Enoch and I think it's a crime that it was suppressed but Nicaea has nothing to do with that. Canonizing books was just not what the council of Nicaea had set out to do.
Enoch was omitted from the Tanakh and eventually was just left out of Christian canons.
Some later church councils and leaders like the 4th century council of Laodicea and Athanasius said it was "apocryphal" but saying that this was done at Nicaea is just incorrect.
Do better...
Thomas Dierson retweeted
Look Luna, I'm a fan of the Book of Enoch and I think it's a crime that it was suppressed, but Nicaea had nothing to do with that.
Canonizing books was just not what the council of Nicaea had set out to do.
Enoch was omitted from the Tanakh and eventually was just left out of Christian canons.
Some later church councils and leaders like the 4th century council of Laodicea and Athanasius said it was "apocryphal" but saying that this was done at Nicaea is just incorrect.
Do better...
This quoted post is unavailable.
