The council of Nicaea said nothing of the canon of scripture.
Correct.
NO Ecumenical Council has.
And again, not that it matters whatsoever, but the Bishop of Rome did NOT participate in this meeting, he didn't attend a single sessions of it. The DIOCESE was represented by two lowly deacons, so the DIOCESE was present, but the bishop was not. Your claim that he attended and PRESIDED over it is yet another falsehood.
But 3 local councils later in the same century declared those books to be divine canonical scripture.
LOCAL! REGIONAL! WESTERN! LATIN! meetings of a diocese presided by a bishop.... each of those bishops in submission to the Pope in Rome.... having very limited authority and only for that region. But since you don't submit to regional diocese meeting by dioceses of the Latin Chruch and bishops in submission to the Pope in Rome, that's a moot point. You don't submit to local bishops under the Pope so why should we?
Now IF (big there) IF you had posted, "These three obscure and for centuries forgotten local meetings of the Latin Church reveal that
at least in those dioceases at that time, these books were
in some way regarded as Scripture but we don't know if identically." IF you had said that, then everyone here would have said "Yup." Lots of book were called "Scripture" in the first centuries (including some you reject), some were denied as Scripture (some you accept) - the "consensus" was unofficial, imperfect and by no means universal. But for over a year, you've been repeating a FALSEHOOD, that CHRISTIANITY proclaimed something about some "them" you keep refusing to identify, you keep insisting CHRISTIANITY did something at some ECUMENICAL, ALL-Christianity, PAN-Christianity meeting with a date and place - officially and formally declaring for all Christians and all Christianity some (you won't identify) books to be The fully and equally canonical Scripture. CHRISTIANITY DID SOMETHING for the whole faith, for all Christians. Wrong. You've been wrong. Has has been pointed out to you over and over and over and over - for a year now - but you keep repeating it, one way or another. And you won't tell us why this matters - other than you find some books helpful (as we all do) and you claim that Christians won't read anything that isn't in a tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover.
Is it therefore logical to assume that the whole entire council at Nicaea rejected the apocryphal books?
1. WHAT books that you reject as authentic and authoritative ("apocryphal")?
2.
Can you read? Do you read? What I said was the Council of Nicaea did
NOTHING regarding the canon. I wrote "NOTHING"
not "SOMETHING." Did you not read it? Did you misread the word? The word "NOTHING" usually means nothing. So, how in the world could I have stated that it DID something, DID something directly regarding the canon, official and binding and authoritative? Can you read?
NO ONE HERE remotely stated, said, implied or suggested that the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea ADDED or REMOVED or did ANYTHING WHATSOEVER in regard to the canon. Which is why we said it did NOTHING in this regard. Nothing usually means nothing, not something. Are you able to understand that? NONE of the Ecumenical Councils did about this. Brother, it is SO hard to have a discussion when either you can't read or don't.... when you purposely REVERSE our positions.
is it logical to assume that only a few decades later whole entire regions suddenly declared them to be scripture
Do you know what is said of the word "assume?" Did you know that "assume" is not proof? Not evidence? Not substantiation?
We've been waiting (for over a year now) for you to state which of the Ecumenical Councils officially/formally, authoritatively, for all Christianity declared these "them" books (you won't identify) to be among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. But you won't. We all know why, because you can't. Your claim is false. It's wrong. It's baseless. It's unhistorical. Christianity never put "them" IN so it's impossibly IMPOSSIBLE for Christianity to take anything OUT of it. Christianity hasn't done anything in this regard. When will this dawn on you? When will reality matter to you?
Is it reasonable to say that NONE of the attendees at the council of Nicaea accepted the apocrypha as scripture?
You can assume what you like; changes nothing.
We have no idea what the attendees thought on this. For one VERY obvious reason: it was never reported. Simple. Obvious.
How many of them thought the world was flat? You could assume 58.9% did but you have NOTHING to substantiate that (not that EVER seems to stop you). You could assume that 92.4% of the participants reported that they believed the Earth is the center of the universe while enjoying some Martinis in the hotel lobby before dinner, but you have nothing to remotely indicate such. You seem to confuse "possible" with "fact." But only when it serves you.
.
