• 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

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Katzpur said:
Do a Google search on Nicene Creed and you'll have your choice of hundreds of websites on the subject. The creed itself is rather short. Read it and see for yourself that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian canon.
Hi Katz,

This is a rather presumptous reply. What I was saying was that maybe someone could give their input instead of a one liner dismissal. That is the only reason someone would read this thread, to hear what others are saying. I asked, what do you think the significance of it was, not what you may quote from another source.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
My view on Constantine,

While Dan's criticism is rather harsh, it is not totally mistaken. We have an Roman Emperor. The emperor ran things in his empire the way a Roman Emperor does. Constantine was an emperor first, and convert to Chritianity second. His power was so great that even those who were sanctioned by him were still intimidated to a degree. He didn't do the deciding of the Chrisitan doctrine, he only wanted it to be unequivocably defined so he could give his official stamp to it so to speak. Therefore, his influence is undeniable but must be seen in the proper perspective. Yes, those sanctioned by the empire were the ins and those not were the outs. We all know how Rome dealt with the outs.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Bennettresearch said:
My view on Constantine,

While Dan's criticism is rather harsh, it is not totally mistaken. We have an Roman Emperor. The emperor ran things in his empire the way a Roman Emperor does. Constantine was an emperor first, and convert to Chritianity second. His power was so great that even those who were sanctioned by him were still intimidated to a degree. He didn't do the deciding of the Chrisitan doctrine, he only wanted it to be unequivocably defined so he could give his official stamp to it so to speak. Therefore, his influence is undeniable but must be seen in the proper perspective. Yes, those sanctioned by the empire were the ins and those not were the outs. We all know how Rome dealt with the outs.
Bennett, your research was a fair one. Thanks.

~Victor
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Bennettresearch said:
Hi Katz,

This is a rather presumptous reply. What I was saying was that maybe someone could give their input instead of a one liner dismissal. That is the only reason someone would read this thread, to hear what others are saying. I asked, what do you think the significance of it was, not what you may quote from another source.
Sorry,

I didn't mean to be presumptuous. I honestly thought that you were unaware of the content of the Nicene Creed. I hate "one-line dismissals" myself, so I'm sorry if that's how I came across.

Kathryn
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
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
He is a non-believer but lead the Catholic Church, by being the Emperor, and is responsible for calling the Nicea where 'selected' Bishop by him attended. See Mohamad long long post.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Katzpur said:
Sorry,

I didn't mean to be presumptuous. I honestly thought that you were unaware of the content of the Nicene Creed. I hate "one-line dismissals" myself, so I'm sorry if that's how I came across.

Kathryn
It's all good Katz;)
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Bennettresearch said:
My view on Constantine,

While Dan's criticism is rather harsh, it is not totally mistaken. We have an Roman Emperor. The emperor ran things in his empire the way a Roman Emperor does. Constantine was an emperor first, and convert to Chritianity second. His power was so great that even those who were sanctioned by him were still intimidated to a degree. He didn't do the deciding of the Chrisitan doctrine, he only wanted it to be unequivocably defined so he could give his official stamp to it so to speak. Therefore, his influence is undeniable but must be seen in the proper perspective. Yes, those sanctioned by the empire were the ins and those not were the outs. We all know how Rome dealt with the outs.
I was harsh, but I tend to be frank when it comes to murderers.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
He is a non-believer but lead the Catholic Church, by being the Emperor, and is responsible for calling the Nicea where 'selected' Bishop by him attended. See Mohamad long long post.
I think everyone needs to do a bit more research... a more complete study will show important "bits" that may help clear up what kind of influence Constantine had, or more importantly, didn't have.

In the West, the senatorial order remained quite pagan, and as late as 380 stoutly resisted the Emperor's command to remove the pagan statue of Victory from their chamber.... they finally were forced to remove it.... but remember that Constantine died in 337. Constantine converted to Christianity, but tolerated paganism...it was, in fact, HIS SONS who decided to destroy paganism.... especially his son Constantinius who ruled @350. It was his main focus to destroy paganism... he closed pagan temples and imposed the death penalty for anyone who was participating in sacrafices.

It seems that everyone wants to bend history enough to attack the Church.... Constantine was TOO pagan and allowed Sun worship, blah, blah.... Constantine was ANTI-pagan and killed everyone not a Christian when he "ruled" the Church.... blah blah.... ya can't have it both ways.:D
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
greatcalgarian said:
He is a non-believer but lead the Catholic Church, by being the Emperor, and is responsible for calling the Nicea where 'selected' Bishop by him attended. See Mohamad long long post.
GC, I got that part. I was only really objecting to the question I posed. You must of missed it.

~Victor
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
I think everyone needs to do a bit more research... a more complete study will show important "bits" that may help clear up what kind of influence Constantine had, or more importantly, didn't have.

In the West, the senatorial order remained quite pagan, and as late as 380 stoutly resisted the Emperor's command to remove the pagan statue of Victory from their chamber.... they finally were forced to remove it.... but remember that Constantine died in 337. Constantine converted to Christianity, but tolerated paganism...it was, in fact, HIS SONS who decided to destroy paganism.... especially his son Constantinius who ruled @350. It was his main focus to destroy paganism... he closed pagan temples and imposed the death penalty for anyone who was participating in sacrafices.

It seems that everyone wants to bend history enough to attack the Church.... Constantine was TOO pagan and allowed Sun worship, blah, blah.... Constantine was ANTI-pagan and killed everyone not a Christian when he "ruled" the Church.... blah blah.... ya can't have it both ways.:D
Agreed. Constantine started the ball rolling, hence most people put the blame on him, the initiator.:D
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
GC, I got that part. I was only really objecting to the question I posed. You must of missed it.

~Victor
Okeedokee. Got you. I was not reading carefully, try to save time to read more.:D
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
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.
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?
Keep your treasure.
Is lying a sin in Islam?
Sorry I have been away from the posts lately have been busy. Very interesting responses. As I said I am just giving information trying to get feedback. I can list all my sources and books of reference. I am still waiting for you to give me your references to support your as you say attack on each of my lies I posted. You want me to defend my post against what you have given no references rebuking what I have said. Your statements are your own personal opinion I was really looking for references from some of the books you may have on the subject. I want to hear from the scholars or people who have told you this is a lie what do they say about it. You have told me nothing, brother I am not trying to argue with you but it seems this is the road you want to travel maybe your goal is to not learn but to fight as I have said in other posts I am a student if my teacher is lying tell me what your teacher says so I can compare. Again please give me whatever references you have contradicting my sources I would love to have them so I can get these books or articles and read them myself. If all you want to do is fight over the matter nothing will get accomplished. If you do not want to learn from each other then I will as you say keep my treasure. And to answer your question yes it is a sin to lie in Islam but where have I lied these quotes about the Council of Nicea are not mine I WAS NOT THERE. I am only relaying what I have been told and if you can't see that then I am sorry there is nothing I can do or say to help calm your speech and open you mind.
 

Mujahid Mohammed

Well-Known Member
jonny said:
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.
Dear brother I am not critisizing the treatment of Catholics to people I am just curious why he sounds so angry in his post. I never judge people or religions on what the followers do only the ones who gave them their religion. It is not fair for me to judge certain self proclaimed Muslims, Christians, and Jews groups on the actions of some of their followers. Would I be safe in judging Muslims according to Saddam Hussain or Christianity according to the Crusades. Of course not people do what they do. The originators of the religion is what the standard should be judged on. Yes some brothers under the banner of Islam and Christianity and Judaism have done some pretty nasty things throughout time but am I to judge a religion on the actions of a few nuts. I don't and I would not expect anyone else to do the same. Peace.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Mujahid Mohammed said:
I am still waiting for you to give me your references to support your as you say attack on each of my lies I posted.
Oh vey.... ok, here is your reading list:

Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. Guiseppe Alberigo et al, Basel Herder 1962

Encyclopedia of Theology. Karl Rahner Seabury Press 1975

A New Eusebuis James Stevenson SPCK 1957

From the Apostolic Community to Constantine (Vol. 1 of History of the Church) Karl Baus Crossroad 1982

The Early Church and the World Cecil Cadoux T&T Clark 1955

History of Primitive Christianity Hans Conzelmann Abingdon Press 1973

The Rise of Christianity Rodney Stark Princeton University Press 1996

The New Testament and Early Christianity Joseph Tyson Macmillan 1984

All you have to pick is ONE... just ONE... and there are THOUSANDS more that I do not own.

What I have a problem with is believeing that with the THOUSANDS of books that reflect a positive view of early Christianity, that a Muslim- BY ACCIDENT, can only find references that seem to attack the crediblity of the Church. I don't believe it was an accident..... so please, prove me wrong. After you do your research, I will wait for you to post someting POSITIVE and SUPPORTIVE of the early Christian Church.... I will be holding my breath.:D
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
T&T Clark 1955
What I have a problem with is believeing that with the THOUSANDS of books that reflect a positive view of early Christianity, that a Muslim- BY ACCIDENT, can only find references that seem to attack the crediblity of the Church. I don't believe it was an accident..... so please, prove me wrong. After you do your research, I will wait for you to post someting POSITIVE and SUPPORTIVE of the early Christian Church.... I will be holding my breath.:D
Well said. But have you read thousands of books that reflect a positive view of Muslim, and very few on negative view of early Christianity? Selective reading is human nature. You pick what you are comfortable to read since you developed the power to understand and reason and read and think as you moved from childhood into adolescence. Your environment and your past experience shaped what you prefer to read and prefer to think. So it is good that we can have a very good opporutnity in this forum here to read others view, and what others have learned, and try to receive education and learning from them.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian said:
Well said. But have you read thousands of books that reflect a positive view of Muslim, and very few on negative view of early Christianity?
Thanks.... (but I would like to point out that I have read several books that cast early Christianity in a negative light).... my point was that I don't post information that attacks Muslim beliefs, and while I support and defend anyone's right to post as they choose, it seems to me deceitful at best to constantly attack a belief system and try to pawn it off as anything other than an apologetic work.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Scott1 said:
Thanks.... (but I would like to point out that I have read several books that cast early Christianity in a negative light).... my point was that I don't post information that attacks Muslim beliefs, and while I support and defend anyone's right to post as they choose, it seems to me deceitful at best to constantly attack a belief system and try to pawn it off as anything other than an apologetic work.
Then what is the point of this forum if only a member is allowed to discuss about his/her own faith only and don't share the information s/he has about other faiths and sects? :confused:

please answer this question: Do you believe that if anyone want to share what s/he knows about other faiths so s/he is attacking them?
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
The Truth said:
Then what is the point of this forum if only a member is allowed to discuss about his/her own faith only and don't share the information s/he has about other faiths and sects?
I guess you are not following along.... oh well.
please answer this question: Do you believe that if anyone want to share what s/he knows about other faiths so s/he is attacking them?
No.... but it is quite clear to everyone when it is done.:D
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Scott1 said:
I guess you are not following along.... oh well.
No.... but it is quite clear to everyone when it is done.:D
You didn't think that what is clear for you is not clear for others?

You didn't ever think that what you see it as right others may see it wrong and vise versa?

This is how we get benefit from each other. To open our heart before our mind.:)
 
Top