It ain't easy being a Christian in 325AD

[Woolleybugger]

Do any of you know that the council of Nicea was actually convened because the church at the time was split into two factions each of whom believed in the same God but had vast differences on the nature of Jesus. One group was named after Arius, the Alexandrian priest who founded the school of Antioch, maintained that Jesus did not exist as Jesus prior to his appearance on earth.

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering (Ward 1955, 41)." This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man (Ward 1955, 42)."​

The other maintained in the belief that Jesus had been an eternal God. This group was determined to maintain the eternity of Jesus regardless of the difficulty in supporting a monotheistic God who miraculously has two other Gods or semi-Gods or Godlike attributes. It came to be that over time, the Trinity grew into an idea that conforms to today's understanding of it. We have one God and somehow that God makes part of him or her into a human and also has a Holy Ghost out there doing something or other too. The mumbo jumbo logic of this requires some serious contortions but it has been argued and has become the consensus today.

Here is straight from the creed adopted by the council that effectively made the Arians heretics.

Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

""We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth ."​

Since Constantine was eager to get this resolved and unify his empire under one creed, he agreed with the majority position and made all Arians recant or face exile, death or worse. Two Libyan priests refused to sign the new creed and were banished.

So there you have it. The core tenets of the Catholic and therefore the Protestant faith were set into motion by months of debate by all the learned men of the time and then enforced by the Emperor of Rome. No notes from the council exist. We only have later interpretations to go by. Who was right? Well, a Christian today would say it was settled correctly. One in 325 might say something different depending upon where they lived. But one thing is certain, after 325, if you dared to question the eventual Creed adopted by the Emperor of Rome, you were dead meat.

BTW, if you care to look these quotes up, they can be found in a much more thorough analysis on this site.

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/Arianism_vs_council_nicaea.htm

But don't get put off by the site's name, the same information is available in many other places as well. I just included this link to make sure some of you realize that the history of the big three religions is very intertwined. Had the Arians had more support, they would have won the debate and our view of Christianity would reflect the true concept of monotheism.

 

[marvin martian]

Interesting post. Good luck with your journey...

 

[Woolleybugger]

Interesting post. Good luck with your journey...

I love history. Real history is usually something quite different than the history we all think we know. One of the things that really disturbs me about the teaching of history is that it usually is a lesson in some political or cultural idea that takes history and warps it so that it can serve a modern goal. Some say that in order to control the present, you must control the past. I think this is what weak people do. Our human history is so complex and interesting that I cannot understand why some folks just reject it outright. I am the same person whether I believe in mythology or history as it happened. What changes is my understanding of humanity. Either I can live in fantasy or the closest thing to truth we can manage. I prefer the latter.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Actually, 325AD was right after Christianity was illegal and punishable by death in Rome.

The council of Nicea was absolutely necessary because of what you described.. different people claiming different things. There's no way you can have a religion if you can't establish core tenants. The Nicene creed lays them out.

You seem to be suggesting some "gotcha" history by saying there were differing movements within early Christianity, but I'm not getting where that's coming from. It's the natural progression of how such a religion is built.

 

[gigi]

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. "

 

[Woolleybugger]

Actually, 325AD was right after Christianity was illegal and punishable by death in Rome.

The council of Nicea was absolutely necessary because of what you described.. different people claiming different things. There's no way you can have a religion if you can't establish core tenants. The Nicene creed lays them out.

You seem to be suggesting some "gotcha" history by saying there were differing movements within early Christianity, but I'm not getting where that's coming from. It's the natural progression of how such a religion is built.

Constantine made Christianity because he thought that this new God was more powerful than the other Gods and that his successes were due to his adoption of it. They were a superstitious lot, pick a God and hope that God helps you win a battle, conquer a foe, secure power. As for your comment about laying out the core tenants, that is true if you want to stop the growth of sects and bring everyone under a universal church that is state sponsored. The Council did bring in a few hundred church leaders and they hashed it over over a year or more before they finally came up with the creed.

So, the question is: how did they determine which gospel, story or books to include in one creed? What about the jewish torah that we now call the OT? How do we believe in one God, the God of Abraham and still believe in the trinity and especially the divinity of Jesus? No first hand source material from Jesus. Lots of Paul's letters and lot's of various sects all across the empire. Lots of Jewish leaders saying Jesus was only a prophet. So over 300 years from the claimed death of Jesus, they decided which gospels to include and left no minutes, notes or articles from their deliberations. Only the creed enforced by the Emperor and the fear of hell for all eternity.

Great way to start a church. BTW, the Jews did the same thing 1000 years before, the Muslims would do the same thing 600 years later.

 

[JV-12]

Do any of you know that the council of Nicea was actually convened because the church at the time was split into two factions each of whom believed in the same God but had vast differences on the nature of Jesus. One group was named after Arius, the Alexandrian priest who founded the school of Antioch, maintained that Jesus did not exist as Jesus prior to his appearance on earth.

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering (Ward 1955, 41)." This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man (Ward 1955, 42)."​

The other maintained in the belief that Jesus had been an eternal God. This group was determined to maintain the eternity of Jesus regardless of the difficulty in supporting a monotheistic God who miraculously has two other Gods or semi-Gods or Godlike attributes. It came to be that over time, the Trinity grew into an idea that conforms to today's understanding of it. We have one God and somehow that God makes part of him or her into a human and also has a Holy Ghost out there doing something or other too. The mumbo jumbo logic of this requires some serious contortions but it has been argued and has become the consensus today.

Here is straight from the creed adopted by the council that effectively made the Arians heretics.

Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

""We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth ."​

Since Constantine was eager to get this resolved and unify his empire under one creed, he agreed with the majority position and made all Arians recant or face exile, death or worse. Two Libyan priests refused to sign the new creed and were banished.

So there you have it. The core tenets of the Catholic and therefore the Protestant faith were set into motion by months of debate by all the learned men of the time and then enforced by the Emperor of Rome. No notes from the council exist. We only have later interpretations to go by. Who was right? Well, a Christian today would say it was settled correctly. One in 325 might say something different depending upon where they lived. But one thing is certain, after 325, if you dared to question the eventual Creed adopted by the Emperor of Rome, you were dead meat.

BTW, if you care to look these quotes up, they can be found in a much more thorough analysis on this site.

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/Arianism_vs_council_nicaea.htm

But don't get put off by the site's name, the same information is available in many other places as well. I just included this link to make sure some of you realize that the history of the big three religions is very intertwined. Had the Arians had more support, they would have won the debate and our view of Christianity would reflect the true concept of monotheism.

You report this as though there is no God above. Or as though if there is, this God does not intervene in the affairs of man.

Both possibilities above border on the inane. Countless times many have tried to demonstrate or explain or prove those who deny God are in the wrong. But apparently that just does not work for some.

 

[Woolleybugger]

You report this as though there is no God above. Or as though if there is, this God does not intervene in the affairs of man.

Both possibilities above border on the inane. Countless times many have tried to demonstrate or explain or prove those who deny God are in the wrong. But apparently that just does not work for some.

My post is about the history of the church not the actions of God. It appears that your desire is to prove that God somehow led these men to some consensus. I believe that is exactly what the two sides would have said in arguments. In fact, that same argument has been said countless times for all three religions for thousands of years. I am willing to bet that even you may harbor thoughts that God is driving you to defend him on-line constantly.

 

[JV-12]

My post is about the history of the church not the actions of God.

Is it? It appears your intent is to suggest one side won out by happenstance or some other local factors of the times? IOW, our world could so easily be so much different and our views on God as well if it were not for this quirk or that quirk. That is what I call inane.

It appears that your desire is to prove that God somehow led these men to some consensus. I believe that is exactly what the two sides would have said in arguments. In fact, that same argument has been said countless times for all three religions for thousands of years.

Yes, right. So? Either God exists or he doesn’t. Both sides cannot be wrong. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He is not. Both sides cannot be wrong, neither can Islam and Christianity both be right.

What are you trying to say?... I do not get it? Unless, as already noted, you are trying to imply this could have just as easily went another way? No, it could not have. Not when one has been given the great gift of revelation, then there is no longer this kind of speculating that makes any sense.

I am willing to bet that even you may harbor thoughts that God is driving you to defend him on-line constantly.

I am not sure that can be proven one way or the other?

 

[marvin martian]

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. "

That's one of the most irrefutable scriptural references to the structure of the Holy Trinity. John 1:1.

Good call...

 

[Woolleybugger]

Is it? It appears your intent is to suggest one side won out by happenstance or some other local factors of the times? IOW, our world could so easily be so much different and our views on God as well if it were not for this quirk or that quirk. That is what I call inane.

Yes, right. So? Either God exists or he doesn’t. Both sides cannot be wrong. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He is not. Both sides cannot be wrong, neither can Islam and Christianity both be right.

What are you trying to say?... I do not get it? Unless, as already noted, you are trying to imply this could have just as easily went another way? No, it could not have. Not when one has been given the great gift of revelation, then there is no longer this kind of speculating that makes any sense.

I am not sure that can be proven one way or the other?

My lord, you people are incapable of self-analysis or objective reasoning. Do you not see that at the time the faith was split into two camps both of which said they represented the truth? One side won and was backed by the Emperor of Rome. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it. Essentially, you are agreeing with the council that the Arians were heretics because they simply believed that God created Jesus, that God existed PRIOR to Jesus. In order to refute this very sensible and very Jewish concept, they had to make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to make Jesus equal to God, Jesus was eternal....no, maybe Jesus was just part of God but somehow different than God because he was a man who died. This is at the core of why both Judaism and Islam never believed that Jesus or Muhammed were Gods. Only the people who created the mythology of Jesus as a God believe this stuff.

 

[JV-12]

My lord, you people are incapable of self-analysis or objective reasoning. Do you not see that at the time the faith was split into two camps both of which said they represented the truth? One side won and was backed by the Emperor of Rome. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it. Essentially, you are agreeing with the council that the Arians were heretics because they simply believed that God created Jesus, that God existed PRIOR to Jesus. In order to refute this very sensible and very Jewish concept, they had to make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to make Jesus equal to God, Jesus was eternal....no, maybe Jesus was just part of God but somehow different than God because he was a man who died. This is at the core of why both Judaism and Islam never believed that Jesus or Muhammed were Gods. Only the people who created the mythology of Jesus as a God believe this stuff.

Fine, believe however you like.

But time and history did not stop at the moment of that debate or decision. Innumerable saints followed with their revelations and teachings, all verified by the miracles God granted them to validate their words. As have many apparitions of Mary all proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Now if you want to side with Arianus, you also have to call many other revelations false, and also believe Almighty God allowed all the faithful to be mislead on something that core and critical for 2000 years. Me, I’m not at all worried about it.

 

[gigi]

My lord, you people are incapable of self-analysis or objective reasoning. Do you not see that at the time the faith was split into two camps both of which said they represented the truth? One side won and was backed by the Emperor of Rome. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it. Essentially, you are agreeing with the council that the Arians were heretics because they simply believed that God created Jesus, that God existed PRIOR to Jesus. In order to refute this very sensible and very Jewish concept, they had to make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to make Jesus equal to God, Jesus was eternal....no, maybe Jesus was just part of God but somehow different than God because he was a man who died. This is at the core of why both Judaism and Islam never believed that Jesus or Muhammed were Gods. Only the people who created the mythology of Jesus as a God believe this stuff.

Yes, Woolley. Once again, anyone who disagrees with you or believes something different is incapable of something, and that something is always tied up in a failure to examine what we believe. Yet your arguments seldom include anything that we really believe.

I looked at your source. "Excepts and quotes from Catholic Church History".
Here's a radical idea: Why don't you actually try and read Catholic Church history? Why don't you read about the life of Constantine and where his beliefs came from instead of just surmising? In fact, try reading the early Church fathers' words themselves.

We're well aware that people denied the divinity of Christ. That still goes on today, even among groups that refer to themselves as Christians. But those of us that know Him, know the Truth about Him.

You might want to look at two books...One is "The History of the Catholic Church" by James Hitchcock and the other is "Salvation is From the Jews" by a guy named Shoeman. Can't remember his first name.