Re: What was decided at the Council of Nicaea?

[bookwormom]

so what does it amount to? Arius and Origenes are heretics and nobody talks about them anymore. Long live the emperor who manages to get the three major religions of the empire under one hat (so much more convenient and so much easier to control)and become canonized for his troubles...

Long time ago I suffered from seeing discrepancies and things that were said to be so but in reality just were not I was tired asking question and having excuses made for God and obvious things needing explanations. I called a hotline(catholic) because I was young and serious and the lady I talked to said, you need to study the exegese of the Bible.
So I started, that was many years ago, and off and on I am still studying. But I have come to an entirely different conclusion than you.
I believe in Jesus, he is the Christ, my redeemer.

[bookwormom]

I sure envy you your spare time.
as for the above thread, really, what is that all about. Are you trying to show off your superior knowledge or what? I feel sort of bated about it and feel you ought to just have said what there is o say, hence my for me short and somewhat sharp reply. We all know the so called Nicean Creed, also called apostolic creed was basically formulated, though, as you know, it was Konstantin who was in charge and some of those who signed did so under duress and later recanted. I am sorry, I don't have time to go look anything up, am late as usual, luckily I have two teenagers coming over in half an hr to help with clearing more land. (they are homeschooled, and not playing hookey, but it is a big help to have someone to help pile up branches and stack the bigger pieces to be cut for firewood later. We could have a real big midsummer St. Johns fire ;))

[lsg]

It seems to me that most of your research has to do with materials that attempt to discredit the Bible. As far as I am concerned that is not true and objective research.
Check this link out to see some very hard-core agnostics and atheist who have become Christians. Many are professors, doctors, lawyers etc.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/testimonies/

[lsg]

THE LADY HOPE "STORY"

Many creationists are familiar with the account that a "Lady Hope" gave of her visit to Darwin a few months before he died. Although it has appeared in various books, we present it below for those to whom it is new.

.......................

It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.

He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.

Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.

He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!

...................

This is the account that appeared on the 19th August 1915 in the Baptist "Watchman-Examiner" in Washington D.C. (Q29/2:70). In 1922, friends in Los Angeles who knew her wrote an affidavit (L.A. affidavit) (MooreJ:79). In 1940, Prof Bole released a letter he had received from her in the early 1920's (Bole letter) (MooreJ:86).

[lsg]

lsg,
*By the way I thought God chose the simple to confound the wise? *??? *Not the other way around.
If you are trying to insult me, forget it. *As I said earlier, it doesn't matter what you say to me or about me, I will defend the gospel. ;)

I was just trying to make the point that your research is mostly biased.

Here is a quote from the Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner:

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH OF THE 318 FATHERS

"We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci di**** homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. "

Apparently that was agreed upon at the council.

Source: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

[lsg]

Read my modified post above your post. *Maybe that will clear something up for you. :D

[beekeeper]

"What was decided, ..."?

Were those things which had to be decided [right or wrong] to expedite forming a single religion under an emperor.

When folks look to re-gain the strength of spirit and closeness to God that may have been experienced by Christians of long ago; do they look at the examples of Christians before 325, or after 325?

I would suggest before.

The history of the church is long, twisted and shows great evil at times.

I am not convinced that good things were the result of these councils.

[BrentL]

who cares what was decided at The Council of Nicea? It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the nature of God or whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

you said\The Council of Nicea determined the nature of Jesus, nothing more.

bull!! what a load of poo!

they dont (didnt) have the POWER to DETERMINE the nature of ANYTHING.

great idea, lets form a council and base our outcome on political expediency and compromise to bring the greatest number of people under one umbrella and call it truth.

Truth cannot compromise.

A silly council of men cannot DETERMINE truth. They may get together to try to DISCERN the nature of something, but they cannot DETERMINE it.



so perhaps hey wait a minute there sjf the Council of Nicea decided nothing of importance so who cares should have been the response.

its like saying the UNITED NATIONS got together and DETERMINED that fire is no longer hot.

its just a big fat honkin who cares what their opinions were.

they were just opinions, and most of them were not even true to themselves.

thats just a fundamental thinking flaw.

[WileyCoyote]

Sorta reminds me of the Global Warming debate. ::) ;D



But, hey, as long as people want to debate it and have nothing better to do, and it's their interest, so what? If you don't want to debate it, or it isn't relevant to you and your life and interests, why read or post here at all? Lots of other places to post, discuss, or investigate on this forum. Let it be.

[BrentL]

I was not saying that I didnt want to debate it. sometimes posts like my last one are hard to get across correctly. of course it is interesting and worthy of research, in fact if you are unaware of the impact this council had on Christianity from the historical, humanistic point of view then I think you are missing a key to understanding.

from a 100% secular viewpoint, it was of grand importance, and changed the course of Christianity.

but it isn't Christianity any more than a federal reserve note is money.

and this post is on the religion thread, so I approach it from the religious side, not human history side.

from the religious side it is meaningless. from a historical perspective it had a huge impact.

[bookwormom]

quote
Be careful envy is one of the seven deadly sins!

you are so right ;)

quote
Your response isn't mandatory, we all have thing to do.

sigh, don't I know it.

[Vidman]

I am terribly sorry that you have fallen of the Bandwagon. Increased study time could help you there. Tell me, what specific event/doctrine/Dogma caused you to fall away?

[333]

Peace,

Forgive my ignorance but my studies gave me the impression that many things were on the table at Constatines order, to bring some union and stability to the declining Roman empire comprised mostly of "pagan" and polytheistic folk for close to a thousand years and the rising tide of the new "christian" power. The nature of GOD was also on the table, to define All that Is in a way to bring as many people into the fold as possible.

Accordingly the definiton went as follows: All that IS (GOD) is 1 omnipotent, 2 omniscient, 3 omnipresent, 4 Benovolent, 5 Eternal, and 6 there is only "One" All that IS (God). But I have been lied to before by text and folks alike as all history is written by the victor mostly, not the vanquished.

What a wonderful discussion thank you.

333

[beekeeper]

... Accordingly the definiton went as follows: All that IS (GOD) is 1 omnipotent, 2 omniscient, 3 omnipresent, 4 Benovolent, 5 Eternal, and 6 there is only "One" All that IS (God).

Thus forming the 'catholic-universal [pagan and polytheistic] Church'

To distinguish it from a Biblical Unitarian or monotheist church.

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear Forum Members,

This kinda reminds me of the Wrestling Epilogue on Monty Python's Flying Circus:

The Epilogue: A Question of Belief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOCCL9hFJyY

"...And the results of The Epilogue: God exists by two falls to a submission."

;D