• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA 325A.D.,and CONSTANTINE

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
Hello everyone as I had stated I would try and start a thread on this particular subject and others. It is going to be alot of information. I will be discussing in this thread the different aspects of the Historical aspects of the Council of Nicea how the Trinity was created there and how Ancient Mystery religions are dirrectly related to Christianity. And would love to hear your comments. I will begin with a quote from "The New Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol XIV,p.295 "It is diffucult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal eveolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as ohter, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the pero=iod of Christian origins to, say the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought... ti was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development" So what happened exactly in the fourth century CE Mr. David F. Wright, senior lecturer in Ecclesiatical History at the University of Edinburough, says on a detailed account of Trinity. "Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis, one of the 12 parishes of Alexandria. He was a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, He clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immorality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did not exist before he was created by the father. The father produced him as a creature." Wright goes on to demonstarate in this book how before the 3rd century CE the " three" were seperate in Christian belief and each has his or its own status. Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity," chapter on Councils and Creeds.
Tertullian (155-220 AD), lawyer and presbyter in 3rd century Church in Carthage was the first Christian to coin the word Trinity when he put forthe the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, But are all of one being of substance with the Father( Interpreter Dictionary of the Bible, V4,p711).
About this time, two serparate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman empire. One the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the PAGAN emeror of the Romans, began to notice the increasing number of converts to the new faith among his subjects. They were no longer a petty fringe sect of no great concern to the empire, rather, their presence was becoming increasingly noticeable, and the severe division and animosity betewwn their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the empire as a whole.
On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had in 318CE onece again just blown up between two church men from Alexandria, Arius the deacon and Alexander his bishop. Now the Constantine stepped into the fray. The emperor sent thise men many letters ecouraging ythem to put aside their trivial disputes regarding th nature of God and the number of God, etc. To one who had become accustomed to being surrounded by countless gods, goddesses, demi-gods,man-gods, and incarnations of gods,resurrections of Gods, and so forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god or three gods or "three gods in one" was all very trivial and inconsequential.
After several repeated attempts by the emperor to paciy them failed, he finally found himself in 325AD faced with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: Should the observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday and the concept of the Trinity or accept preachings associated with the commandments of Shepard Hemas and teachings in Gospel of Barnabus etc. The 1st of 12 commandments in Shepard of Hermas is First of all, believe that God is One and that He created all things and organised them and out of what did not exist made all things to be, and He contains all things but alone is Himself uncontained..." ( the apostolic fathers E.J. Goodspeed.) Constantine realized that a unified church was nescessary for a strong kingdom. When the negotiations failed to settle dispute he called the "Council of Nicea" in order to resolve these and other matters. The council met and voted on whether Jesus was God or not. Arius was at a marked disadvantage since he was not given a seat on the council. The council voted effectively Jesus into the postion of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who believed in the unity of God. All books written by Arius or supporting his teachings were then burned and those who hid them were killed.
The Trinitarians quicly coined the word "homoousious"(consubstantial/same substance) and then used theri new found political backing to force all attendees to accept their definitions of the nature of God. No compromise would be tolerated and even those with moderate views were forced to sign the decree and condemn all Unitarians or be subject to severe persecution. All who oposed them were killed or banished.
Many historians believe this was done not based upon religious principles but rather political neccesity. One historian writes" At the beginning fo the council, the party of moderate Arian views of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the most influential member, was in the majority, and 'homoousious' has some difficulty in securing acceptance; it was imposed rather than accepted. Hosius supported it energetically; the same was true of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Emperor made it known that he desired the use of the word. This was, for many, a captial argument" another historian writes," Council was, for Constantine, much more an affair fo the state than an affair of the Church. Desirous of putting an end to the disputes which troubled his provinces, he worried little that they approve Arius or Alexander, but he worried a great deal that the majority should arrive at a conclusion of which they could make use to impose silence on the opponents, no matter who they were."(apostacy from the divine church by James L. Barker.)
There is even extensive proof that most of those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but thought it politically expedient to do do. Neo Platonic philosophy is the means by whcih the doctrine of Trinity was formaulated. One of the attendees, Apuleius,wrote" I passover in silence" explaning that " those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane..." The vast majority signed under polotical pressure It is narrated that out of the 2030 attendees only 318 readily accepted the creed.("Al Seerah Al-Nabawiyya", Abu Al-Hassan Al Nadwi p.306)
Only when they returned home did some of attendeess such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put thir signatures to the Nicene formula: "We commited an impious act, O Prince," wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, "by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."
However, the damage wsa already done and there would be no undoing it now. It is recorded that 13 conferences were held in the 4th century wherein Arius and his beliefs were condemned. On the other hand 15 supported him. It will also be noted that in 431AD it gave Mary the title "Theotoko" (God-Bearing). This is how she became known as the mother of God.


UNFORTUNATELY DEAR FRIENDS I MUST STOP HERE I LIVE IN THE AREA WHERE HURRICANE RITA(CATAGORY 4) MAY STRIKE I AND MY FAMILY HAVE A MANDATORY EVACUATION. I HAVE MANY PREPARATIONS AND DUE TO TIME AND LENGTH OF THIS POST I WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE YOU IT LATER. I WILL AS SOON AS I CAN CONTINUE WITH THIS POST I APPRECIATE EVERYONES PATIENCE AND WILL INSHA ALLAH TALK TO EVERYONE VERY SOON. MAY ALLAH BE WITH US ALL.

MUJAHID MOHAMMED ABDUL MALIK-UL-MULK

 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
How do you explain Trinitarian theology pre-Nicea?
Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
The formula given in Nicea was a response to Arianism. Trinitas was not something novel to the early fathers. It is a common misconception that when a Council is held that something absolutely new is coming to be. Not the case.

To add:

Tertullian

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

In Christ
~Victor
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Thanks Victor!

Might as well add another that uses the word "trinity" so as to prevent any wiggling:

"[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." Origen, First Principles, 4:28 (A.D. 230).
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Irrespective of absolutely anything, these doctrines are the offspring of the pure doctrine of the Bible and imperfect human philosophy. Human philosophy is erred, and nothing in these doctrines can be perceived as being independent of that fallaciousness. In every instance the gospel has been perverted to satiate the demands of philosophical arrogance. Plato and Aristotle are the authors of Catholicism, not Christ or Paul.
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
How about going back to the Hebrew Sages!
Who interpreted Gen.1 as God created the words/alephbet/(firstborn of all creation) Wherein God spoke Torah to create the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 3 God said(via the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:15)(Jn.1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) Kinda fits perfectly! Now don't it?

Trinity is "Precepts of Men" since it is not from the mouth of God, nor is it from the mouth of Jesus. Think for yourself!
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Scott1 said:
How do you explain Trinitarian theology pre-Nicea?
Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
Scott,

I don't see the Trinity being taught here. I see the Godhead being taught here. To begin with, Jesus is described as holding a second place to the Father, and the Holy Ghost a third. It doesn't appear to me that Justin Martyr was saying they are co-equal. He is not describing them as a single indivisible substance or essence, either. He is simply describing them pretty much as they are described in the Bible.

Kathryn
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Katzpur said:
Scott,

I don't see the Trinity being taught here. I see the Godhead being taught here. To begin with, Jesus is described as holding a second place to the Father, and the Holy Ghost a third. It doesn't appear to me that Justin Martyr was saying they are co-equal. He is not describing them as a single indivisible substance or essence, either. He is simply describing them pretty much as they are described in the Bible.

Kathryn
Perhaps the one I provided is a bit clearer..:)

~Victor
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
Irrespective of absolutely anything, these doctrines are the offspring of the pure doctrine of the Bible and imperfect human philosophy. Human philosophy is erred, and nothing in these doctrines can be perceived as being independent of that fallaciousness. In every instance the gospel has been perverted to satiate the demands of philosophical arrogance. Plato and Aristotle are the authors of Catholicism, not Christ or Paul.

Apparently you think God restricted himself to only 66 books, that correct?

~Victor
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Victor said:
Perhaps the one I provided is a bit clearer..:)

~Victor
Hi, Victor.

I have no quarrel with your quote either. Tertullian doesn't appear to be describing the three members of the Godhead as a single indivisible substance or essence, either. He's using, for the most part, the same wording as is found in the scriptures.

Kathryn
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Victor said:
Apparently you think God restricted himself to only 66 books, that correct?

~Victor
Sorry, Victor... I know you addressed this one to Dan, but I simply couldn't resist responding. I'm surprised you would ask a Mormon if he believes that God restricted Himself to only 66 books. Think again before you make that assumption! ;) Add all the books of the Apocrypha to the Bibles non-Christians use, and you don't even come close to what my Church sees as scripture.

Kathryn
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Mujahid Mohammed said:
Hello everyone as I had stated I would try and start a thread on this particular subject and others.
Try to do whatever pleases you. What you were asked to do, and what you've failed to do, is substantiate your claim that Nicea defined Biblical Canon.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
I don't see the Trinity being taught here. I see the Godhead being taught here.
OK.... but this was directed at the thread starter... Christians and LDS members view divinity in different ways.
To begin with, Jesus is described as holding a second place to the Father, and the Holy Ghost a third.
To Christians, divinity can not be split/divided-watered down etc etc... Christ is divine, or he is not. Period. Christians don't believe that a divine being can hold a "second place" to anything.
It doesn't appear to me that Justin Martyr was saying they are co-equal.
I didn't think you would... Justin also defended the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist against the charge that Christians were "cannibals".... for anyone in the LDS faith to believe anything of history in the first century of Christianity would force you to reject your faith... and I don't see that happening anytime soon!:D

Scott
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Scott,

OK.... but this was directed at the thread starter... Christians and LDS members view divinity in different ways.
What? First off… for your information, I am a Christian. I am every bit as much a Christian as you are.

To Christians, divinity can not be split/divided-watered down etc etc... Christ is divine, or he is not. Period. Christians don't believe that a divine being can hold a "second place" to anything.
Watered-down? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Christ is divine. Fully divine. Always divine. Neither Dan nor I have ever implied that He wasn’t. I’ve got to agree with Dan, though, that your choice of words leaves something to be desired. You are hardly in a position to be defining what “Christians” believe. You may be accurate in stating what some Christians believe, but I can assure you that other Christians believe differently.

With respect to a divine being able to hold a second place to anything, you’re wrong. A divine being can be subordinate to another divine being. (Maybe I’ll start a thread on this topic. It should be interesting.)

I didn't think you would... Justin also defended the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist against the charge that Christians were "cannibals".... for anyone in the LDS faith to believe anything of history in the first century of Christianity would force you to reject your faith... and I don't see that happening anytime soon!
We’re not talking about the Eucharist here. We’re talking about the nature of divinity. So let’s just stick to that for now. As to your other statement, all I can say is that you are obviously not quite as well-informed as you think you are. I could give you more material than you can imagine from first-century sources that support LDS doctrine. It is precisely because of these similarities to the ancient Church that I hold my faith to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. So you're right... I won't be rejecting it any time soon, particularly in exchange for any of the man-made doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries!

Kathryn
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
katzpur said:
What? First off… for your information, I am a Christian.
I could care less how you describe yourself... my opinion is permitted here and I never made reference to you personally... if you choose to make this personal, that is your decision. I am entitled to express my opinion about religion on this forum no matter how much you might not like what I say.... right?
It is precisely because of these similarities to the ancient Church that I hold my faith to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. So you're right... I won't be rejecting it any time soon, particularly in exchange for any of the man-made doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries!
.... and while I disagree with you, I will not make this personal.... you seem to have lost your ability to discuss LDS faith without freaking out... so I will bow out of this thread.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
I could care less how you describe yourself... my opinion is permitted here and I never made reference to you personally... if you choose to make this personal, that is your decision. I am entitled to express my opinion about religion on this forum no matter how much you might not like what I say.... right?
I agree that you have the right to your opinion. I just think we need to agree that we have different definitions of what being a Christian is. Mormons believe that the term applies to them because we believe in and follow the teachings of Christ. Many Christians in other sects have additional requirements applying the term to a person.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
jonny said:
I agree that you have the right to your opinion.
I appreciate that.
I just think we need to agree that we have different definitions of what being a Christian is.
"We" do not... this is a debate forum, and I have just as much right to my opinion as a LDS member who believes that MY FAITH is the result of apostasy and "man-made doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries!"... (for instance).... if someone comes along 1800 years from now with a new "revelation", a new gospel, that calls just about everything a Mormon believs to be false, and then chooses to call their faith The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I am QUITE CERTAIN a LDS member in the future will be quick to make the distinction that they are NOT LDS members.

Someone can come along and play a game on ice with golf clubs hitting a fish... but when they try to call it "baseball" someone will be sure to correct them.

While I respect your right to call yourself Christian, Mormon, Smithians, Muslim, or whatever you choose... please understand that my Church has been here since the time of Christ, and even if you choose to not believe that, you must understand my attempt to classify what is and what is not Christian... or have we become so willy-nilly that any discussion that does not fit within your guidelines will be attacked?
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
So we don't agree that we have different opinions on the definition of being Christian?

By the way, yes I believe in an apostasy, but I would never try to insult your faith by debating this belief with you. I have never in my life discussed this belief with a Catholic and I don't plan on starting today. I'm sorry if a member of my church has tried to degrade your faith in this way. I think it is as low as telling a member of my church that they are not Christian. There are some things that we believe. There are others that we say. Sometimes it is best not to say things we believe - I call this being tactful.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Scott1 said:
"We" do not...
By "we", I'm assuming that you mean Catholics. Scott, I personally know many Catholics who believe I am a Christian, so it really is inaccurate for you to speak on behalf of your Church as a whole. I suspect, though, that when jonny said "we," he was referring to Catholics and Latter-day Saints. And it appears to be clear that "we" are not using the word "Christian" in the same way.

If someone comes along 1800 years from now with a new "revelation", a new gospel, that calls just about everything a Mormon believs to be false, and then chooses to call their faith The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I am QUITE CERTAIN a LDS member in the future will be quick to make the distinction that they are NOT LDS members.
I am quite certain that you are right. But, if they looked to Jesus Christ for salvation, honored Him in all they did, and worshipped Him as the Only Begotten Son of God, I don't think we would try to tell them that they weren't Christians. We'd simply say that they weren't Latter-day Saints. If it would make you feel any better to tell us that we're not Catholics, please feel free to do so. I don't think any of us will dispute that.

Someone can come along and play a game on ice with golf clubs hitting a fish... but when they try to call it "baseball" someone will be sure to correct them.
Do you honestly believe that calling hockey baseball is analagous to calling Latter-day Saints Christians? Or don't you believe Lutherans or Baptists to be Christians either? They don't share all of your beliefs.

While I respect your right to call yourself Christian, Mormon, Smithians, Muslim, or whatever you choose... please understand that my Church has been here since the time of Christ, and even if you choose to not believe that, you must understand my attempt to classify what is and what is not Christian... or have we become so willy-nilly that any discussion that does not fit within your guidelines will be attacked?
We know your Church has been around longer than ours, Scott, and has roughly ten times as many members. What I can't figure out is how this has anything at all to do with the Nicene Creed. May I suggest a return to the actual topic of this thread?

Kathryn
 
Top