It looks like the deliberations of the Council came about mostly because of political expediency. They "agreed" to this and that..... they reached consensus, largely based upon the predominant beliefs of those individuals present. Presumably those individuals represented the majority beliefs of the populace. The Arabian world had a lot of scientific knowledge, I believe, but did Rome give much notice to that knowledge, especially if it conflicted with Rome's desire for dominance?
So, how does modern-day religious argument rest upon what came out of Nicaea? And how much credence can be placed upon the arguments?
I don't know that the bible is based predominately on the beliefs of those present, mostly because it was very political. Actual beliefs almost certainly took a back seat to what would be useful in the eternal quest for power.
One of the biggest losers was apparently the gnostics of the time; those people that followed Jesus (Christians, in other words) but found that neither priests nor church were necessary to worship. Their god was inside them, not given by a priest, and their holy books were all deleted from consideration for inclusion in the bible. Even writings from eye witnesses to Jesus' life were eventually to be destroyed in the effort to maintain power for the church and Rome.
So...most modern day religious arguments come from the efforts of the people at Nicaea (and Constantine), working hard to maintain and extend their power over people. As such, they cannot be given anywhere near the credence most people give them.
And if the Biblical accounts of Jesus' teachings can be trusted at all, then Gnosticism is the likeliest candidate for what his teachings represented. Shed personal possessions, care not for the things of the world, always live in the present--it all points to the metaphysical being more important than the physical. Coincidentally (or not), it's a key Gnostic principle.
The most significant alteration that came from this council, was changing the method of Baptism. The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus and this was the practice until the Nicaea council. They then changed the method of baptism to Father, Son & Holy Ghost.
Yes, there is a reference to this in the new testament "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19. But perhaps it was never meant to be changed.
The important part is the Nicaean Creed. You say WHAT?1
What they argued is small, what they agreed upon is major. I believe there were 7 councils of Nicaea. Gnosticism and Christ being the focus. They showed clearly that man after Christ's Ascension was still argumentative and sophical. Ridiculous rules were enacted. But not one Christian follower cared until she was crucified for not following it.
The Council of Nicaea is especially hilarious as the writings of the Essenes, believed to be the direct followers of James (a.k.a. Jesus' brother a.k.a. the guy Jesus was said to put in charge of his teachings and his legacy), were thrown away right away.
And instead, half the New Testament contains the propaganda of a Roman spy.
You may have a point here! I believe that Constantine did have a purely political agenda in the formation of
the RCC. It is believed that he was not himself a believer until he was on his death bead, IF in fact he did at that point. IF this and everything posted thus far in this thread is true, All that proves is that Atheist should not logically believe they can use this political version in their attempts to disprove the existence or non existence of GOD. ALL this proves is the bible is the product of a political agenda.
However ... according to the bible, (approx 230 years prior to the Council of Nicaea) when John received the Revelation, an institution such as this would at some time in the near future come into power, It would, if possible, fool even the very elect. It will be given 42 months (in prophesy) to Blaspheme.
SOoo , “IF” these statements concerning this council of Nicaea could be proven and accepted as true, all this would mean is that the RCC was the beast described in Rev. 13.
Sounds much like the predictions of Nicodemus. Assuming the religion grows, at some point writings WILL be collected and that action WILL be politically oriented. Man is a political, power oriented creature and it is a simple prediction that any group assembling such a bible will use their power to extend their power.
And like Nicodemus, the prediction fails badly on details. It is been a little more than 42 months since the bible was compiled.
As far as time passing in biblical prophesy goes, it is plain to see that 42 months in prophesy is not the same amount of time as our calandar. For instance ,,, in 538 BC Gabriel is said to have told daniel that in 62 weeks the Messiah will be killed. Approx 538 years later Jesus was killed. SOoo as far as biblical prophesy is concerned ? 568 of our years would be equal to approx. 62 prophetic weeks.
SOo if this concept were explored, ???
So Gabriel was wrong, just as John was. Or maybe Daniel misunderstood, or changed the number to something more palatable to him.
Changing the words of the bible to mean something other than what was recorded always seems a little wrong somehow. Particularly when dealing with such as these prophecies, it seems just a method to retain the "truth" of the prophecy rather than accept that it was wrong to start with. Changing the words just creates the impression of truth without ever changing the reality that it was wrong to start with.
But - unless you change the words to mean something else, the logical conclusion is that it is all rubbish. Hence 2,000 years of arguing over what the words should say instead of what they actually say. Jerami is good at this game.
Well, yes. But as we know without doubt that it isn't rubbish, we must find a way to rationalize. Changing the meaning of words is easier than changing history. Eventually, I suppose, the words themselves will be changed to match the meaning.
....Change the word to match the meaning..... Is not the purpose of a word to convey a meaning? We use words to communicate something that occurs in our mind.
Jerami, Mark, Wilderness, myself.... we each have a difference precept in our minds and want to convey to the others what IS in our minds. There seems to be the objective of coming to a relaxed state in my mind...... by convincing others of my precepts, getting them to accept, agree, then I can relax because I no longer feel threatened about what is in my mind.
Whether what I have in my mind is categorically true and factual is not really important. It's just getting accepted which makes me relax. There is always a personal agenda.
Applying what I have said to all of your (very much respected) posts here might give you some insights.
There can be many objectives in the choice of a particular word. To create anger, fear or other emotion in the listener. To convince some else of a particular viewpoint. To soothe the speaker and reinforce personal beliefs (as in the case of changing the meaning of biblical text). To convince someone a lie is true.
There are many, many objectives in both speech in general and in the choice of specific words. It would be a wonderful world if what you said was always true, but it isn't.
I felt I ought to look this up on Wikipedia before commenting here as I had previously assumed that the Council of Nicea was concerned with agreeing which books were in and which were not to be in the bible. I was wrong.
According to Wikipedia the discussions covered:
Arianism, the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover (Easter), ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.
To me these all seem to be pretty minor issues regarding impact on Christian doctrine with the exception of the nature of Jesus which appears to have been the dominant issue. Two Arians believed Jesus was created by God, whilst the other 300 or so believe he was of the same essence as God. I guess this latter idea led to the Trinity doctrine which is hotly debated even today.
Does it really matter? Well if you are a fundamentalist Christian who believes that believing the wrong doctrine can result in being sent to hell, then yes. Otherwise it's just an argument over semantics.
The Council of Nicea was certainly political in its aim. Constantine became interested in Christianity as a tool to further empire, and then all his conversion story and such proceeded backwards from there.
Gnosticism was certainly the loser in the council, however, I don't think Gnostics were simply ascetics and more enlightened, spiritual searchers. They likely had house-churches and congregations much like their "orthodox" counterparts (they weren't termed that yet, of course, but anyways...). They also had great teachers, leaders, and members of the community. Valentinus is probably the best known. He was a teacher of philosophy and quite well-versed in Platonic theory.
I think the debate ultimately came down to this -- which would be more politically expedient?: 1) a doctrine that largely challenges the status quo -- Gnosticism claims corporeal reality was created and is ruled over by an imperfect creator, and that the established spiritual/ontological hierarchies are oppressive, and thus one can be liberated through gnosis with the truth of Christ (likely experienced personally and through the community of faith), or 2) corporeal reality, the body, and the physical Earth is all created by a good God, redeemed by Christ, and that goodness and holiness is available, but mediated through the power structure of the Church on Earth.
While I think the former could be used and twisted to serve the purposes of warmongering, empire, and all the other lovely things Christianity has committed in the past 2000 years, the latter is certainly much easier to work with. The former also has plenty of potential to give rise to reaction against oppression and worldly corruption. The latter allows for much more control over "salvation."
by Bruce_Leiter6 years ago
What do you people believe about Jesus? This question is perhaps the most crucial decision that a person can make, believing in and deciding to follow Jesus--or not. During the first 16 years of my life, I...
by Fairbear7 years ago
This is just my opinion based on the research I've done. During the first four centuries gnostic Christianity posed a serious threat to the orthodoox sect. But due in part to the strong institutional orientation of the...
by r-o-y4 years ago
The bible states that the beast had two horns like a lamb, but a mouth that speak great blasphemy! On the surface it appears to be the Church of Christ, but on close inspection one see that this beast with horns like a...
by Stump Parrish12 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology -...
by mishpat2 years ago
I have enjoyed many "debates" with folks here on the Hub, but in the long run, its seems those that believe still believe and those that don't still don't. Why is this?Could it be, Christians, that we...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.