Council of Nicaea

[Stella]

Honestly, I don't have any questions.

I believe through faith and I just worship my Lord in everything I do.
It makes no difference, if I understand how the Lord does a thing. It also makes no difference; if the Church I attend is in error, because my relationship with my Savior is a personal experience, not a group experience. The group is there so that each of us has a chance to share and encourage one another.

But if you want a question, I'll ask you one from my study group:

How did the Council of Nicaea change the world?

[Dave]

This first ecumenical council has become the very foundation Christianity.

www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea
Date: 325 AD
Accepted by: Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics

Convoked by Emperor Constantine I

Presided by St. Alexander of Alexandria (and also Emperor Constantine)[1]

Attendance: 250–318 (only five from Western Church)

Topics of discussion 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.

Documents and statements: Original Nicene Creed, 20 canons, and an epistle

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father; in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, or created as the other creatures out of nothing. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria). The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides.

-----------

Point 1 – Attendance: 250-318 men got together for this meeting, and of these men, only 5 were from Rome (Western Church – Roman Catholic)

Point 2 – Why was it called? Evidently at this stage of Christian history Egypt was at the very heart of Christian theology – NOT ROME. Bible Study, exegetics, research, inquiry, and the strength to question all came from Egypt. The question came from Egypt. The accuser came from Egypt. The solution to the question also came from an Egyptian scholar.

Point 3 – Presided over by Alexander of Alexandria and the Emperor of the Roman Empire (although he was not there in person)

So, I googled who is Alexander of Alexandria:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Alexandria
Pope Alexander of Alexandria (died 326 or 328) was the nineteenth Patriarch of Alexandria from 313 to his death. During his patriarchate, he dealt with a number of issues relevant to a church's positions on issues facing the church. He was the leader of the opposition to Arianism at the First Council of Nicaea.

Pope Alexander from Egypt? What? Don’t most people consider that guy from ROME the Pope?

If you would look at the history of the Coptic church, it goes like this:
Christ said he would build His Church upon Peter (Matt 16:18)
John Mark becomes Peter’s scribe, companion, and interpreter. (Not Latin, Not Greek, but Egyptian)
John Mark record the words of Peter – and it become the Gospel of Mark
Matthew and Luke rely heavily on The Gospel of Mark to write their own Gospels.
One of the Letters of Peter that found its way into the NT is written from Babylon
(Rome rewrites history so that people today think that Peter wrote this letter from Rome, because hundreds of years after the fact, the term Babylon became a metaphor for the Roman Empire. – However, at the time Peter wrote this letter, Babylon was a small town North of Alexandria Egypt)
After Peter is put to death – John Mark become the first Pope of the church of Alexandria Egypt.


orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Coptic_Popes
List of the Popes of the Coptic See of Alexandria
1. St. Mark the Evangelist
2. Inianos (was a shoemaker)
3. Milieus
4. Kerdonou
5. Epriemou
6. Iostos
7. Oumenios
8. Markianos
9. Kalavtianos
10. Aghreppinios
11. Yulianos (Julian)
12. Demetrios I (Demetry)
13. Yaraklas
14. Dionysius
15. Maximus
16. Theona
17. Petros I (Peter) Seal of Martyrs
18. Archelaos
19. Alexanderos I (Alexander) (1st Ecumenical Council)(313-326 or 328)
20. Athanasius I (1st Ecumenical Council as a deacon)

So – from Christ to 325AD the Coptic Church of Egypt had 19 Popes to get to Alexander.
Do the math – from 32AD to 325 divided by 19 Popes = 15.4 years each as Pope.

Now compare

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm (The catholic Encyclopedia)
The List of Roman Catholic Popes
1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)

Do the math again = 8.9yrs per Pope.

Ponder, why the disparity between the two groups? The Coptic seem to be a lot more consistently stable. While you are Pondering this question, I’ll share with you that in 2012 the Coptic Church just elected their 118th Pope, while the 266th Pope of Rome quit in February of 2013.

Coptics – 16.8 yrs per Pope Rome – 7.4 yrs per Pope

Point 4 – As of 325 AD – the heart, mind, and leadership of Christianity stemmed from Peter via EGYPT. In 325 AD Rome was a small church in a faith that was dominated by the people that lived between Egypt and Turkey,

[Dave]

Ponit 5 - The question that caused this counsel: Was person of Jesus Christ divine since the beginning of creation, or was he just a man that became divine when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Matt. 3:16 (NIV) As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

The Nicaean Creed as of 325AD

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost.

The Apostles Creed as of 2013

www.digital-disciple.com/apostles_creed.html
I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to Judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Point 6 – it looks as if someone added - the holy catholic church, the communion of saints!
I wonder who that could have been.

I have an admitted bias here. I think / believe / see / perceive an open and blatant CONSPIRACY by the ROME centered christendom to rewrite history in its own favor. Today, we open a history book or ask an expert on the subject and every answer you will get is a Rome centered perspective.

How did the Creed of Nicaea transform into the Apostles Creed?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_creed
The Apostles' Creed (Latin: Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum), sometimes titled Symbol of the Apostles, is an early statement of Christian belief, a creed or "symbol". It is widely used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical Churches of Western tradition, including the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Western Orthodoxy. It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists.

The title, Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles), appears for the first time in a letter, probably written by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about 390: "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled". But what existed at that time was not what is now known as the Apostles' Creed but a shorter statement of belief that, for instance, did not include the phrase "maker of heaven and earth", a phrase that may have been inserted only in the 7th century.

Creed of Nicaea 325AD - Apostles Creed 390AD - “probably” written by the Roman catholic Bishop of Milan, Ambrose! Isn’t it obvious it was written in Nicaea in 325AD? It was just rebranded as Roman and Catholic by 390AD.

Ponder – When speaking about who uses the Apostles Creed, why didn’t wiki list any of the Eastern Churches? Somehow it has become the soul property of, created by, and used only by Roman Christendom.

Point 7– Authorship. Ambrose was a scholar / bishop / intelligent person that studied the work of Oregin. Who is Oregin? He was one of Christianity’s very first true theologians. He ran the very first school of theology in the world in Northern Egypt, he practically invented Bible Study in an academic sense. Oregin was a dominate force with his writings and teaching in the 2nd century. Later, Rome exiled him ad all his writing sometime between the 4th and 5th centuries. Have you ever heard of him?

Why do I think / believe / perceive Ambrose to be an Oregin follower?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose
One interpretation of Ambrose's writings is that he was a Christian universalist.[20] It has been noted that Ambrose's theology was significantly influenced by that of Origen and Didymus the Blind, two other early Christian universalists.

One quotation cited in favor of this belief:
Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. 'Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,' for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.

Christian universalistism is the idea that in the end – “All will be saved!” and the only guy teaching / preaching / pushing this perspective was Oregin

Oregin – of Egypt – the master theologian of his era – who ran the very first bible school / seminary in the world. 245-313 Eastern representatives at the Council of Nicaea to only 5 Romans is there absolutely any reason to assume that the Creed of Nicaea was written MOSTLY, if not entirely, by Eastern attitudes (Coptic)

[Dave]

Point 8 - and the answer to your question -

There are two answers to your question. Here is the answer I bet you’re expecting:

www.livescience.com/2410-council-nicea-changed-world.html
When Constantine became the first Christian leader of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a hodgepodge of beliefs and religions.

Within his own young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions.

That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.

The Christianity we know today is a result of what those men agreed upon over that sticky month, including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter, which celebrates Jesus rising from the dead.

Young religion

Christianity was young and still working out the kinks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God.

Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.

Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.
Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.

Savvy move

In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.

Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.

As a final order of business, the bishops decided upon a date for the holiest of Christian celebrations, Easter, which was being observed at different times around the empire. Previously linked with the timing of Passover, the council settled on a moveable day that would never coincide again with the Jewish holiday — the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.

[Dave]

Point 8 - and the answer to your question -

There are two answers to your question.

Now here is the answer you’re not expecting:

www.christian-history.org/post-nicene.html
There are a lot of myths about Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea, however, made only one major change to post-Nicene Christianity. It got the emperor involved in the government of the Church, and the Church involved in government.

It was enough.

The Council of Nicea met to resolve the Arainis dispute, but it was really resolved in advance. The tradition of the apostles was clear, and there was no way for a council of all bishops to agree with Arius. They censured him, and Constantine banned him from the empire (temporarily).

Constantine did not become a Christian until he was on his deathbed in 337, but he showed great favor to Christians even while he was the official leader of Roman paganism. As a result, whereas perhaps only 10% of Romans were Christians during the Great Persecution, that number skyrocketed to 90% by the end of Constantine's reign.

The Council of Nicea was held as much to hold the Roman empire together as it was to hold the Church together. So many Romans had become Christians under Constantine that a Church split could easily become a split in the empire.

The result was the post-Nicene Church was full of unconverted pagans; the change was so dramatic that it can't be overstated.

The evidence I constantly cite for this change is the difference between Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, covering the history of Christianity from the apostles through A.D. 323, and Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History, which takes up where Eusebius left off and covers most of our post-Nicene era.

Eusebius' history is what you would expect in a history of Christianity. It describes great men of God, some doctrinal disputes, the bravery of Christians under persecution, and some heresies that arose.

Socrates' post-Nicene history is a horrifying mixture of violence, ambition, political intrigue, and, except for a few shining examples, has little to do with following Christ

The office of bishop became a powerful political office after the time of Constantine. Before the Great Persecution leaders of the churches were not even paid. They were provided their basic needs along with the widows and orphans. After Constantine, they were on government salary, and such offices were often filled by corrupt and ambitious men.


Dave’s comment

“It got the emperor involved in the government of the Church, and the Church involved in government.”

This is only the first negative impact of the council. This is also the same historical approach governments have used to guarantee loyalty from and control over the population at large – place that population on a government payrole.

On the reverse, Ponder this: who had the power over countries of Europe through the next one thousand years?

www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/15CRUSAD.htm
There were political forces at work as well, since the Crusades were also tied to the Investiture Controversy, the struggle for power between the rising authority of the Pope and the ruling political system in the day. From the papal perspective, the kings of Europe had long intruded upon the sacred right of the Pope to run his own business—that is, to choose the men who constituted the Church's administration—and in calling the First Crusade, Urban II shifted the theatre of action in this political conflict to an arena where medieval kings had traditionally reigned supreme, the battlefield. … Thus, along with the other devastations they wrought—such as the enmity they inspired between East and West—the crusaders brought enormous disharmony to the cultural landscape of this area, arguably one of the more enduring legacies of their savagery. … and so it's also fair to ask how such a dramatic shift in policy came to be, that popes moved from denouncing bloodshed to demanding it in the name of God. … By the last Crusade, many in Europe had come to see the Pope as just another war-mongering king, not the guardian of souls … So, when in 1291 … the Crusades were brought to an ignominious close. Pope Boniface VIII offered indulgence to Christian pilgrims if they would "crusade" to Rome, not Jerusalem.

Rome, not Jerusalem!

The second major impact of the Council of Nicaea is that: now that you have an “official” version of Christianity backed by the state – arguments over HERECY can take root. Before Constantine, Christians were persecuted – after Constantine Christians now had a license and approval of the state to do the persecutions.

Their first targets were pagans and pagan temples, but the violence soon spread between one group of Christians against another. Oh yes, and don’t forget – The Crusades and the Inquisition!

In 325 AD, Egypt was the center of Christian thought and education, however, by 390 AD Rome claims that it was she at the center of forming early Christianity, even in drafting the original Apostles Creed (the Nicaea Creed modified).

The Roman Empire was well accustomed to concentrating the power into a centralized Dictator / Emperor / Governor and controlling the general population via implemented laws and regulations.

The Orthodox Roman Catholic Church is a perfect example of a man-made political entity, complete with its own country, ambassadors, secret police, and army.

“Praise the Lord”

[Stella]

I know that the Church has some issues, but I guess I have always seen those issues as the failings of the men that were a part of the Church, not the Church itself.

Yet, the real focus is still alive and well within even the Catholic Church because missionaries are still on the front lines spreading the Word of God. How can the organization behind those missionaries be bad, if the servant on the front lines are doing God's work here on earth.

[Dave]

You said in your original question: “It also makes no difference; if the Church I attend is in error, because my relationship with my Savior is a personal experience, not a group experience.”

It makes no difference if the church I attend is in error?

So let me ask you this:

Would you become a member of a “Unitarian Church?”
Virgin Birth – medically impossible
Resurrection – medically impossible
Trinity – impossible – Christ was just an inspired man – but he was a good one

Would you become a member of the “Mormon Church?”
Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus standing hand in hand
Jesus and Satan are twin brothers
Elohiem lives on a planet in the constellation of Pleiades
And the Mormon Bible and Church are the only true revelation from God

Would you become a Jehovah’s Witness?
Founded by a Free Mason
The second coming already happened in 1879
The end of the world is 1914 – oops – 1918 – oops – 1925 oops
Ok – but the generation alive in 1925 would surely never die a physical death, because the rapture is due at any minute.

How can you develop that personal experience you talked about, if the foundation of your belief system is in error? If you are told to believe that Christ was just a man, not of a virgin birth or resurrection – or your are taught in the beginning that God is an alien from another planet and that Jesus and Satan were twin brothers – or you believe that the second coming has already occurred – how will that help you grow in the spirit?

[Stella]

I must admit that I haven’t thought that much about other Churches.

No, I would not join ant of the Churches you point out.

I am lucky to have grown up in a strong Christian Home that has belonged to the same Christ centered Church for at least all of my life. My family, no matter how extended and all of my friends are members of our Church or one very similar.

You make me Ponder (if I can use your word) what it would be like for myself, if I grew up in a different circumstance. My answer for that is scripture. I also told you that my relationship with my Savior is a personal experience not a group experience, and the responsibility is my own. Knowing the word of God, reading and studying scripture, and personal revelation is my ultimate guide. If I found myself in a Church that was in error, I would try and teach, or lead in my own way. If that doesn’t work, I would find another Church.

[Dave]

You are lucky to come from a strong christian family.

Now imagine the average lost soul wanting to find out about God and Christ. They go to the wrong Church, grow and learn - leave for a better Church. Only to find the new Church in equal error. How many Churches must they go before they lose interest, give up hope, see it all as false.

One religion is found to be faulty - Bible stories also become less valid. The great flood of Noah, becomes just a fairy tail. Next thing you know the whole of scripture becomes suspect.

Darwin is right and Creation has become the property of a few fundamentalist religious freeks like me and you.

How do you encourage that lost soul to find truth in scripture once again?

www.ponderingconfusion.com