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

[Quiddity]

All it did was consolidate Catholicism so it could be easily manipulated.

I'm gonna have to ask you to please clarify what you mean by this.

~Victor

 

[dan]

Constantine saw Christianity as a way to conquer the world. It was obviously a force he would have to deal with at some point or another. He decided it would be more effective to team up with them and then take over the world. The Council of Nicea was an effort to bring all the differing bishops together so they could decide once and for all on the nature of God. This also afforded Constantine the chance to declare himself leader of the church, and kill all those not in agreement, which he did. Thus, the faithful bishops were consolidated under his thumb and the rest were removed from the equation. Now Constantine controls Christianity, which would then go on to destroy all that opposed it. The Catholic church was a political tool and nothing more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This also afforded Constantine the chance to declare himself leader of the church, and kill all those not in agreement, which he did.

Where did he do this?

 

[Quiddity]

The Catholic church was a political tool and nothing more.

Oh boye...you have a reference we can read this? Take away the nothing more. Politics was involved with or without Constastine.

~Victor

 

[linwood]

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.

Nicea did not define Biblical canon but it did lay the groundwork for some of the standards used to define Biblical canon.
IE: The rejection of the Arian and Gnostic theology

 

[greatcalgarian]

Oh boye...you have a reference we can read this? Take away the nothing more. Politics was involved with or without Constastine.

~Victor

Read this one:

The next significant event in Constantine's religious development occurred in 312. Lactantius, whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son Crispusand who therefore must have been close to the imperial family, reports that during the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge Constantine was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers.Twenty-five years later Eusebius gives us a far different, more elaborate, and less convincing account in his Life of Constantine.When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome - neither the time nor the location is specified - they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor" . During the next night, so Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine (This must be the last appearance of Jesus to man on earth :jiggy: )and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the labarum. Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of "the God of the Christians" and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day on, although his understanding of the Christian faith at this time was quite superficial. It has often been supposed that Constantine's profession of Christianity was a matter of political expediency more than of religious conviction; upon closer examination this view cannot be sustained. Constantine did not receive baptism until shortly before his death (see below). It would be a mistake to interpret this as a lack of sincerity or commitment; in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

In the years 325-337 Constantine continued his support of the church even more vigorously than before, both by generous gifts of money and by specific legislation. Among his numerous church foundations the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Golden Octagon in Antioch deserve to be singled out. At the same time, he was more inclined to suppress paganism; we know of some specific pagan temples which were torn down upon his orders, while in other cases temple treasures were confiscated and the proceeds fed into the imperial treasury.

 

[Katzpur]

Christ appeared to Constantine (This must be the last appearance of Jesus to man on earth :jiggy: )

Uh... nope.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Uh... nope.

Sorry, I forgot about LDS, YOURS must be the last time?

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, I forgot about LDS, YOURS must be the last time?

Well, thanks for taking it in the spirit in which I said it!

 

[constantine]

some people will believe everything.......what are the facts , two opposing theological views ...
christian/anti-christian......Constantine was a pagan , till his death!

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

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.

As I said I will continue my post from above and would love to hear your comments and Thank you to everyone who dropped me a line of concern about the hurricane everyone who prayed for me and everyone else in the area I live. Thanks and may God reward you. To continue from the post above.

The pescution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed all those who did not conform wht the new, "official" Christian beliefs. Here is one public declaration: " Understand now by this present statue, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians ... with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricabley woven! We give you warning ... Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet ... and that these should be handed over immediately to the catholic [ie. official] church."

Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the "Trinity" remained far from settled. Despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even the Nicene Creed was being signed; " Arianism" became a catchword from that time onward fro anyhone who didn't hlod to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity. The Athanasians could not refute from Scripture the postition of Arius ans the eastern bishops that Christ was created. The group were not Arians but were lumped together with all othere groups who did not submit to the new trinitarian definitions under this new catch-all word "Arians" to give the impression that the nature of God these groups espoused was new or arose with Arius, which it did not. Arius was trained by Lucian of Antioch, the most famous Christian sholar of the fourth century and the last martyr of Dioletian's persecution. His school also included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Menpophantus of Ephesus, Theoginis of Nicea, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Athanasius of Anarzabus and Asterius the Sophist (HISTORY OF DOGMA, VOL.IV,Harnack,p.3)

Athanasius the bishop who is popularly credited for having formulated this doctrine confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in 551, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trintiy was now considered blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Trinitarians now turned on Christians. maiming and slaughtering thousand because of this difference of belief. Some people might object that the words of all these wminent Christian scholars and highly respected references are all in error. They claim that Jesus did indeed teach the Trinity to the disciples but that he did so in secret to them alone. The disciples then went on and secretly taught others and then a couple of centuries later it was made public knowledge. However not only is this theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself John 18:20

Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during the 3rd century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had been for centuries before that. As had become the popular custom, Empeoror Constantine ( who was king and presided over Council of Nicea) was popularly considered to be the "manifestation" or incarnation of the supreme Roman Sun-God. For this reason in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church compromised with him on the following points.
- They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birth day of Roman Sun god, Winter Solstice festival.
- They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-Day(dies Soli),the oly day of the sun-god.
- They borrowed the emblem fo the Roman sun god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity.
- Incorporated all the pagan festival celebration and pagan ideology into the doctrines.

"The reign of Constantine mards the spoch of the transformation of Christianity from a religion inot a political system; and though, in one sense, that system was degradedinto idolatry, in another it had risen into a development of the old Greek mythology. The maxim holds good in the social as well as in the mechanical world, that, when two bodies strike, the form is both changed. Paganism was modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism. In the Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt - Egypt, the land of the Trinities - the chief point in discussion was to define the postion of ' the Son. ' "
HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE, Prof. John Draper, pp.52-53

Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and were ever transgressing. They used not to forbid one another from the evil which they commited. Vile indeed was what they used to do. You see many of them taking the disbelievers as their protectors and helpers. Evil indeed is that which their ownselves had sent forward before them, for that (reason) Allah's wrath fell upon them and in torment they will abide. And had they believed in Allah, and in the Prophet(Muhammed - saw) and in what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the disbelievers) as protectors and helpers, but many of them are rebellious, the disobedient to Allah. The Noble Qur'an 5:78-82

History was repeating itself. God cautioned the Jews in the past to never give concession in their religion to the non-believers. They however disobeyed Him and felt that a little compromise here and there might go a long way towards facilitating "the greater good" and the continuation of the faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small compromise here and there it would not be long until all remaining differences would be resolved. But at what price?
Many more sewwping campaigns for the utter and complete destruction of all "unacceptable" gospels to the Trintiarian Church would be launched over the following centuries. One example of such campaigns is the one launched during the period of 379-395 AD during the reign of the Emperor Flavius Theodosius wherein all non-Roman Catholic writings were destroyed, or the campaign of Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which ordered the same. Such campaigns would become the norm in the centuries to come.
Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe hardships in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite his "sheep" Ironically Mr. Ata' Ur Rahim records that Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized on his death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly thereafter. In other word, he died a believer in the divine unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Athnasium sect.
This triune God theory was not a novel concept but one that was very much in vogue during the early Christian era. there was:
- the egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.
- the egyptian triad of Horus Osiris and Isis.
- the Palmyra trian of Moon God, Lord of Heaven and Sun God.
- the babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash
- the Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment dody and truth body
- the Hindu Triad Brahma, Vishnu and Siva
many others
However it is populary recognised the the Trinity which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian Trinity was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold disinction of The "First Cause",the "Reason" or Logos, and the "Soul or Spirit of the Universe" Edward Gibbon considered one of the western world's greatest historians and author of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" says in this book considered to be a masterpiece of both history and literature writes in his book.
" ...His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particulary considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world.." p.9
WILL CONTINUE POST

 

[Quiddity]

Read this one:

The next significant event in Constantine's religious development occurred in 312. Lactantius, whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son Crispusand who therefore must have been close to the imperial family, reports that during the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge Constantine was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers.Twenty-five years later Eusebius gives us a far different, more elaborate, and less convincing account in his Life of Constantine.When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome - neither the time nor the location is specified - they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor" . During the next night, so Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine (This must be the last appearance of Jesus to man on earth :jiggy: )and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the labarum. Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of "the God of the Christians" and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day on, although his understanding of the Christian faith at this time was quite superficial. It has often been supposed that Constantine's profession of Christianity was a matter of political expediency more than of religious conviction; upon closer examination this view cannot be sustained. Constantine did not receive baptism until shortly before his death (see below). It would be a mistake to interpret this as a lack of sincerity or commitment; in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

greatcalgarian, unless I missed it, I don't see where Constantine became the leader of the Catholic Church. And if so, did he change anything (teachings) in the Catholic Church?

~Victor

 

[Scott1]

The pescution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds.

This was a two way street.... please remember that.

The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt

As well they should have been... if a Muslim teacher introduced a heretical teaching would Islam embrace it with open arms and tollerance? I think not... so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the "Trinity" remained far from settled.

After EVERY council there were still detractors... it takes about 100 years for matters defined at a council to take hold.

- They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birth day of Roman Sun god, Winter Solstice festival.

What is your point? This action all but DESTROYED the pagan holiday and replaced it with a celebration of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior... this is a bad thing? I do believe you are trying in vain to attack Christianity by using the pagan influence fallacy:

The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer").
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

- They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-Day(dies Soli),the oly day of the sun-god.

This was done about two hundred years earlier:
St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place...."

- They borrowed the emblem fo the Roman sun god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity.

Right..... it wasn't the Cross of the Crucifiction, but a pagan thing..... :banghead3

- Incorporated all the pagan festival celebration and pagan ideology into the doctrines.

Again, the fallacy attack continues... you have yet to show any reason pagan worship or alleged pagan influence is a BAD THING. Please do, it should be filled with attacks on our Pagan members here, and I am sure they will appreciate it.


I can't go on... I doubt you will listen.... I hope others view this load of garbage for what it is.

Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The pescution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds.

This was a two way street.... please remember that.

Could you explain what you mean here, Scott. Thanks.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

This was a two way street.... please remember that.
As well they should have been... if a Muslim teacher introduced a heretical teaching would Islam embrace it with open arms and tollerance? I think not... so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.


After EVERY council there were still detractors... it takes about 100 years for matters defined at a council to take hold.

What is your point? This action all but DESTROYED the pagan holiday and replaced it with a celebration of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior... this is a bad thing? I do believe you are trying in vain to attack Christianity by using the pagan influence fallacy:


This was done about two hundred years earlier:
St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place...."

Right..... it wasn't the Cross of the Crucifiction, but a pagan thing..... :banghead3

Again, the fallacy attack continues... you have yet to show any reason pagan worship or alleged pagan influence is a BAD THING. Please do, it should be filled with attacks on our Pagan members here, and I am sure they will appreciate it.


I can't go on... I doubt you will listen.... I hope others view this load of garbage for what it is.

Scott

Scott I am just giving information from one of my sources these words are not mine. I am just relaying what certain scholars believe if you have an issue take it up with them. I am not even finished posting the whole thing yet please be patient. And again I do not day paganism or idolworship is bad but your bible does and so does my Qur'an. I believe the bible states to not worship any of the pagan gods and that is why the prophets came is to erase idolatry. And you can look at the information however you choose but do not just make blanket statements give me quotes or books of references supporting your ideas on this subject. That is all I am doing. I am not telling you pagans are bad or that these things should not have taken place. I am just giving the evidence on what I have been told and one mans garbage is another man treasure. Keep an open mind and if you can please show me from the sciptures where pagan influences is good or accepted. Again I am not trying to attack Christianity I am trying to get clarification on information people tell me this is how is started I do not know and am looking for other references. Get what you have on it I will get what I have and maybe together we can make sense of it all. These people I get my knowledge from are supposed to be the experts if they are wrong then they are wrong but do not say they are wrong when you have not heard everything yet. Maybe I need to start another post on Paganism and Christianity but I believe some people have already done it. I hope this helps

 

[Scott1]

Scott I am just giving information from one of my sources these words are not mine.

In a debate forum, you take the time to post them.. then you defend them. Period. If you don't want to debate, but are posting these "sources" for information to other Muslims, we have several non-debate forums to do so.

And you can look at the information however you choose but do not just make blanket statements give me quotes or books of references supporting your ideas on this subject.

I most certainly did look at it... that is why I was able to attack each of the lies you posted...

... but now you want me to support what I am giving you as a Christian explaining Christianity.... but you will not defend what you posted?

I am just giving the evidence on what I have been told and one mans garbage is another man treasure.

Keep your treasure.

Again I am not trying to attack Christianity I am trying to get clarification on information people tell me this is how is started I do not know and am looking for other references.

Is lying a sin in Islam?

 

[jonny]

A Muslim critisizing the Catholics over their treatment of people of other faiths...I thought I'd never see the day.

At least the Catholic church has had the humility to apologize for its treatment of people in the past. I don't think I'll see this coming from anywhere official in the Muslim religion during my lifetime.

 

[Scott1]

Could you explain what you mean here, Scott. Thanks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe every group during this time period was manuvering for influence and followers..... Hellenistic Jews, Jewish Christians, followers of Thrace, Eleusinians, followers of Cebele, Mithras etc... all attempting to "convert" others and some using force.... or the Jewish anathemas integrated into synagogue liturgy @85AD.... what I mean is that I can't believe Christians were the only ones to use "unsavory" measures to promote their faith. That help?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe every group during this time period was manuvering for influence and followers..... Hellenistic Jews, Jewish Christians, followers of Thrace, Eleusinians, followers of Cebele, Mithras etc... all attempting to "convert" others and some using force.... or the Jewish anathemas integrated into synagogue liturgy @85AD.... what I mean is that I can't believe Christians were the only ones to use "unsavory" measures to promote their faith. That help?

Yes, certainly if you're speaking of the period around the time of the malediction. But to call the situation circa 325 CE (i.e., over 2 centuries later) a two-way street seems a gross distortion - particularly after the conversion of Constantine.

 

[Scott1]

But to call the situation circa 325 CE (i.e., over 2 centuries later) a two-way street seems a gross distortion - particularly after the conversion of Constantine.

Quite right...