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

[Katzpur]

I could care less how you describe yourself... my opinion is permitted here and I never made reference to you personally...

If I had said "Catholics are not Christians," I would fully expect to hear you and every other Catholic to stand up and say, "I am a Christian." You would have every right to do so.

.... 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.

What is going on, Scott? How did I "freak out"? I'm glad to see (based on your subsequent post) that you decided not to bow out of this thread after all. But I truly am confused. You said, "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!" I replied that I wouldn't trade my faith for "man-made doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries." I fail to see that as "freaking out." If you believe that the doctrines in question were divinely inspired, please tell me why you feel this way. If you feel uncomfortable in discussing the subject, please tell me that, too, and I'll bow out. I just don't see why the hostility all of a sudden.

Kathryn

 

[dan]

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?

My problem lies with the fact that you allow everyone else on the planet who has apparently robbed you of sole proprietorship of the name Christian the opportunity to use it without consequence (except for the millions raped, plundered and murdered along the way to this "sole proprietorship"), but we have done something so egregious that the great Catholic church must put its foot down. I do not recognize your right to classify Christians any more than I appreciate your comparing my religion to hitting a ball with a fish. I respect you as a human being and a brother in God's family; I would defend your right to free speech and your own opinion to the death; I love you for believing in Christ, and I believe you are just as much a Christian as any Mormon (and moreso than quite a few of them) but I simply do not subscribe to your "we got here first" argument. I stand by my statement: the doctrine you claim all Christians adhere to is Catholic doctrine, pure and simple. Not all Christians, even within your acceptable realm of Christiandom, think that way.

 

[Scott1]

Since you as a Mod have decided that this is somehow on-topic for this post, let us continue:

If I had said "Catholics are not Christians," I would fully expect to hear you and every other Catholic to stand up and say, "I am a Christian." You would have every right to do so.

Ummmm, no. Or else every post like this one:

As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that this authority was lost shortly after the deaths of the Apostles and that the Church Christ established fell into Apostasy. For nearly two thousand years, the Church operated without this authority. Hence, the ordinances that were performed were not approved by God.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19992&page=3&pp=10

... would be followed by shouts of outrage and whining about "intollerance" and "prejudice".... I guess I'm tired of being told that the ECF's, many of whom I hold near and dear to my heart and pray with often ARE APOSTATE HERETICS. Gee, I guess as long as you allow me to call myself a Christian everything is A-OK, right?

I just don't see why the hostility all of a sudden.

You keep trying to make this personal... it is not. While I can respect and love LDS members, I have every right to believe you/they are not Christians... if you choose to view that as hostile, have fun.... I'm just offering up my beliefs, same as you and your friends calling my Church apostate.... or did you intend to be hostile?

 

[fromthe heart]

My dear friends..seems Satan is very hard at work here and allowing the space in written words to be misunderstood..I think it would be nice if all involved here just took a step back and allowed for some reflecting....perhpas no one is attacking anyone and words just haven't conveyed properly how one is trying to say what is in their heart. When we allow feelings to over-run we can see things not really there so please my friends (both whom are Christians) take a breath and perhaps a prayer before responding to one another. You are both special people whom God loves...lets try to be more Christ like???

 

[Bennettresearch]

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.

Hi Jay,

Swoop in and swoop back out. Could you elucidate on this subject? Iacob also states that the Council of Nicea is not the central act that decided the canon. It appears to be the main influence by unifying a doctrine from which the organization followed however. Want to share something here? Even a statement on what you think the relevance of this council was or wasn't?

 

[Bennettresearch]

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]).

Hi Scott1

This is no proof of the concept of the Trinity, only that it was a topic for debate before Constantine arrived on the scene. I think that Christians have the right to challenge the validity of this concept. This challenge is also taken personally by Catholics. I, for one, try to make the point that any criticism of the Catholic Church is not directed at people personally, it is a matter of examining the Church and its doctrine.

I think that it is ironic, and this is not directed at you as you are a person stating his viewpoint, that there is an outcry of Catholic bashing and anti-catholic propaganda nowadays. The Catholic Church has been bashing opponents for centuries. It has not been a case of showing others the light, only taking out the opposition. And so, you cannot take this personally if people have formed an opinion about historical fact.

As you have been a person who treats others as fellow humans and has practiced the fellowship of this forum, your viewpoint is just as valuable as anyone's. While I may disagree with you at times, this is the way it is done and I am glad to be a member of this fellowship.

 

[Scott1]

This is no proof of the concept of the Trinity, only that it was a topic for debate before Constantine arrived on the scene.

I disagree.

I think that Christians have the right to challenge the validity of this concept. This challenge is also taken personally by Catholics.

They sure do.... by the same token, Catholics have the right to defend and promote the validity of the Divine Trinity.... this challenge is also taken personally by some non-Catholics.

While I may disagree with you at times, this is the way it is done and I am glad to be a member of this fellowship.

Now that is more "Christian" than about anything I've read on this thread.

 

[Quiddity]

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

Kathryn, how am was I supposed to know he was Mormon? It doesn't matter the statement stands.

~Victor

 

[dan]

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

~Victor

I figured her answer sufficed, but apparently not. No I don't think God restricted himself to 66 books.

 

[Quiddity]

I figured her answer sufficed, but apparently not. No I don't think God restricted himself to 66 books.

Thank you Dan but I wasn't even attempting to respond to her comment because she had already made it clear. I didn't even know you were Mormon.

~Victor

 

[dan]

It becomes fairly evident after a few posts.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Among the world religions, Islam specifically teaches against the Trinity. Chapter four of the Koran argues, "Say not 'Trinity': desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son" (4:171). Although Muhammad seems to have wrongly believed that Christians taught that the Trinity consisted of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, they reject as sinful anything being made equivalent with Allah, especially Jesus.

A common criticism by those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity is that the doctrine was not part of the early church, nor a conscious teaching of Jesus Himself, but was imposed on the church by the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea. Mormons argue that components of Constantine's pagan thought and Greek philosophy were forced on the bishops who assembled in Nicea (located in present day Turkey). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Emperor weighed in against their view, which was the position argued by Arius at the council, and, again, forced the church to follow.

In the remaining portions of this article, we will discuss the impact the three key individuals--Arius, Constantine, and Athanasius--had on the Council of Nicea. We will also respond to the charge that the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of political pressure rather than of thoughtful deliberation on Scripture by a group of committed Christian leaders.

http://www.probe.org/content/view/1213/130/

There are many of arguements in the above link against the "Trinity is that the doctrine was not part of the early church, nor a conscious teaching of Jesus Himself, but was imposed on the church by the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea"

 

[greatcalgarian]

More background on the development of Trinity, from India:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch3.1.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html
And this described how Trinity was consolidated, and believe it or not, Trinity concept is not that wide spread in Pauline era, definitely not among the Jew converted to Christians, as their original learning is there is only one God. In order to pacify these group of believer, three in one concept was formulated:
http://www.basictheology.com/articles/Trinity_Development/3/
Of course, modern day Christianity has expanded and added in different idea and concept about 3 in 1, for example:
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/trinity.html
The Wilkipedia presented a more balanced view on the pre-Necia Christians wide spread of the concept of Trinity or Unity in this article on Arianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
For example, pre-Nicia time there may be more Unitarian Christians than Trinity Christians (my own guess, no proof):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Unitarianism as a system of Christian thought and religious observance has its basis, as opposed to that of orthodox Trinitarianism, in the unipersonality of the Christian Godhead, i.e. in the idea that the Godhead exists in the person of the Father alone. Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic age, claim for their doctrine a prevalence during the ante-Nicene period, and by help of Arian communities and individual thinkers trace a continuity of their views to the present time. Whatever the accuracy of this lineage, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century saw in many European countries an outbreak, more or less serious, of anti-Trinitarian opinion.

Suppressed as a rule in individual cases, this type of doctrine ultimately became the badge of separate religious communities, in Poland (extinct), Hungary and, at a much later date, in England. Compare to Sabellianism.

And more on pre-Christian concept of "Trinity" all over the world as illustrated in this article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap24.shtml
Hence it is very likely that the Pagan idea just started to infiltrate into the early Christians, or influence them to different extent, and a Council of Nicea meeting of over two hundred experts was required to formalize and agree on one unify approach.
And you might find the following intrigueing:

Most of the information that follows I have found in the Anchor Bible, New Test., v. 30, _The Epistles of John_, by Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982). In Appendix IV, pp. 775-787, Brown translated the *standard* Greek text of I John 5:7-8 as follows:

Because there are three who testify,

the Spirit and the water and the blood;
and these three are unto one.


​

However, someone in the course of transmission thought that the following would clear things up (the starred sections are italicized in the book, and represent the added words):

Because there are three who testify *in heaven:*

*Father, Word and Holy Spirit;*
*and these three are one;*
*and there are three who testify on earth:*
the Spirit and the water and the blood;
and these three are unto one.


​

All clear now? Check your favorite Bible translation; the long version approximately is the version in the King James, but the comma is left out in the Revised Standard and other modern, conscientious, versions.

http://www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/comma-johannine.html

 

[Katzpur]

While I can respect and love LDS members, I have every right to believe you/they are not Christians

You certainly do. I suppose you also have the right to beat it into the ground.
Now, for the third time: Did you actually have anything to say about the topic of this thread?

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Jay,

Swoop in and swoop back out. Could you elucidate on this subject? Iacob also states that the Council of Nicea is not the central act that decided the canon. It appears to be the main influence by unifying a doctrine from which the organization followed however. Want to share something here? Even a statement on what you think the relevance of this council was or wasn't?

Of course the Council at Nicaea didn't establish the Christian canon. Anyone who is at all familiar with early Christian history knows that. This council was convened by order of Constantine, a non-Christian emperor whose political agenda required unity within the rapidly growing Christian population. At that particular time, the issue at hand was the nature of God and Jesus Christ's relationship to Him. Constantine, of course, could have cared less what the outcome of the council was -- as long as the controversy was resolved once and for all (which it never really was). The creed which was established as a result of this gathering is known as the Nicene Creed. It is probably considered the primary statement of faith by most, if not all, mainstream Christians today. 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.

 

[Katzpur]

Kathryn, how am was I supposed to know he was Mormon? It doesn't matter the statement stands.

~Victor

Sorry, Victor. I thought you knew that, but I can see now that Dan doesn't list his religion. But I'm confused as to why you say "It doesn't matter. The statement stands." Are you talking about your statement about God restricting himself to 66 books or something else?

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry, Victor. I thought you knew that, but I can see now that Dan doesn't list his religion. But I'm confused as to why you say "It doesn't matter. The statement stands." Are you talking about your statement about God restricting himself to 66 books or something else?

Meaning, the statement stands with the information I knew at the time. Assuming he wasn't Mormon, got me?

~Victor

 

[Bennettresearch]

Of course the Council at Nicaea didn't establish the Christian canon. Anyone who is at all familiar with early Christian history knows that. This council was convened by order of Constantine, a non-Christian emperor whose political agenda required unity within the rapidly growing Christian population. At that particular time, the issue at hand was the nature of God and Jesus Christ's relationship to Him. Constantine, of course, could have cared less what the outcome of the council was -- as long as the controversy was resolved once and for all (which it never really was). The creed which was established as a result of this gathering is known as the Nicene Creed. It is probably considered the primary statement of faith by most, if not all, mainstream Christians today. 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,

Thank you for trying to help, but you missed the point. I wasn't saying that the Council of Nicea decided the Canon, this is know historical fact. What I was asking Jay to do was elucidate on what he thought of the Council. This council has been represented as a turning point in Christianity by a lot of authors. And so, I was looking for some kind of opinion, even if to say that it was a meaningless meeting.

 

[dan]

Hi Katz,

Thank you for trying to help, but you missed the point. I wasn't saying that the Council of Nicea decided the Canon, this is know historical fact. What I was asking Jay to do was elucidate on what he thought of the Council. This council has been represented as a turning point in Christianity by a lot of authors. And so, I was looking for some kind of opinion, even if to say that it was a meaningless meeting.

I feel the meetign served the purpose of securing a doctrine for Constantine's church to subscribe to. It also let him know who wasn't going to be on board, so he knew exactly who to kill. He came out in a robe covered in jewels and sat on a chair made of gold to oversee a literal vote over the nature of a man who washed His servants feet. It was a disgusting display of decadence and tyranny. All it did was consolidate Catholicism so it could be easily manipulated.

 

[Katzpur]

Meaning, the statement stands with the information I knew at the time. Assuming he wasn't Mormon, got me?

~Victor

Yup, I gotcha. Thanks.