What really happened at Nicea(Nicaea)?

I hear many members on ATS get say many odd things about the Council of Nicea. The OP isn't long for a purpose as I am curious as to what the majority of members on ATS believe about the Council. If it was corrupt what evidence do you have to show? I hear many people deny that Constantine was ever actually being Christian. They deny the deity of Christ and say it was something invented at the Council of Nicea however I do not ever see any factual evidence presented. So was it corrupt or was it not?

Dr. Michael Heiser has a decent video on this subject (with the same name as this thread BTW)...

I'm still undecided myself personally but I respect Michael Heiser as a source on this topic.

If you're getting your teachings on Christ and Christianity from Dan Brown, you definitely need a better teacher. Here's Dr. Michael Heiser, Biblical scholar - a true scholar, not a plastic one seeking approval of men - who earned the M.A. and Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004. He has also earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields: Ancient Israel and Egyptology).

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Most people believe Nicea is wher they established the canon of the bible.... or at least that's what most Christians think from what I've found...

The main issue was about the arian Controversy... basically they were trying to decide the true nature of Christ...

Both sides of the argument believed he was in fact God, but Arius actually stuck to the gospels as opposed to his opponents who took Paul's version I believe... making him equal to God

Here ya go... this thread has a link which contains the letters we have from that gathering...

Reconciling Arius...

and by the way.... Arius was right... and I believe he was murdered by the opposing faction to cover up the truth of the matter

Yes, the deck was stacked in the "equality with God" faction's favor...

a reply to: Murgatroid

I have actually seen it haha. Its a 6 hour long lecture lol.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you sure you aren't confusing that video with Heiser's video on Gnosticism here?

The lengths are quite different, 30 minutes VS 6 hours...

What about Chris Pinto's video?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

. . . I am curious as to what the majority of members on ATS believe about the Council.

Nothing happened, other than ordinary church business.
What happened in the Trinity wars, was there was a hoax perpetrated that made it look like the Trinity was discussed and decided on, at that earliest Ecumenical Council, as propaganda to demonize the then dead Arius, by saying that he was condemned by a council before he died, and so his death was proof that he was wrong, because God intervened to kill him for continuing his "heresy" after he was properly admonished by the church authorities, to stop promoting his opinion on the subject.

The reality is that Arius' rival, Athanasius, had his version of the Trinity adopted at a later Council, after Arius was already dead.

a reply to: Akragon

His teaching was that the Father alone is God. The Logos or Son, Arius maintained, was a created being - formed out of nothing by the Father before the universe was made. He therefore said that there was a time when the Son had not existed. According to Arius, the Son was the first and greatest of all that God had created; He was closer to God than all others, and the rest of creation related to God through the Son (for instance, God had created everything else through Christ). By developing this arch-heresy, Arius thought he was defending the fundamental truth that there is only one God - monotheism. A belief in the full deity of Christ, he supposed, would mean the Father and Son were two separate Gods, which contradicted the many statements of the Bible about God’s oneness. Arius was also unhappy with Origen’s idea that there could be ‘degrees’ or ‘grades’ of divinity, with the Son being slightly less divine than the Father (this became known after the Nicene Council as semi-Arianism). Arius argued that since the Father is clearly God, it follows that the Son could not be God - so He must be a created being.

It seems to me the Arius didn't believe He was God at all based on this source.

www.tecmalta.org...

And Wiki

Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally.[5] Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world

It Arius's view the Logos is not eternal but a created being who is not fully God.

Micah 5:2
“[a]But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”

Micah 5:2 clearly states that the Jesus is From the days of eternity. Eternity is a place in which time is not. If you come from eternity you always were. Jesus couldn't have been created.

a reply to: Murgatroid

You'll notice he says that part is session six. There are other sessions that go with that. Havent seen that one watching it now.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It seems to me the Arius didn't believe He was God at all based on this source.

www.tecmalta.org...

Do you expect to find the truth in some pastor who has a page on the net?

Micah 5:2 clearly states that the Jesus is From the days of eternity. Eternity is a place in which time is not. If you come from eternity you always were. Jesus couldn't have been created.

it doesn't matter what the OT says... Directly from Jesus mouth is better would you not say?

Or perhaps you don't believe his words?

It Arius's view the Logos is not eternal but a created being who is not fully God.

That is not correct... Arius believed Jesus was God, just not the Father... or equal to the father as HE actually said...

Jesus was the son, and at a point in the eternity of Time HE did not exist... he could not be a Son, and the Father could not be a Father IF the Father did not exist before Jesus

A letter of Eusebius of Pamphylia to Euphration, which begins: I confess to my lord by every grace…. And it continues later:

For we do not say that the Son is coexisting with the Father, but instead that the Father existed before the Son. For if they coexisted, how could the Father be a father, and the Son be a son? Or how could one indeed be the first, and the other second? And how could one be unbegotten and the other begotten? For the two, if they are equal, likewise exist mutually and are honored equally, one must conclude that either they are both unbegotten or both begotten, as I have said, but it is clear that neither of these is true. For they are neither both unbegotten nor both begotten. For one is indeed the first and best and leads to/precedes the second, both in order and in honor, so that he is the occasion for the second’s existing and for his existing in this particular way.

(2.) For the Son of God himself, who quite clearly knows all things, knows that he is different from, less, and inferior to the Father, and with full piety also teaches us this when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28].

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I hear many members on ATS get say many odd things about the Council of Nicea. The OP isn't long for a purpose as I am curious as to what the majority of members on ATS believe about the Council. If it was corrupt what evidence do you have to show? I hear many people deny that Constantine was ever actually being Christian. They deny the deity of Christ and say it was something invented at the Council of Nicea however I do not ever see any factual evidence presented. So was it corrupt or was it not?

Blasphemy pretty much sums it up... Constantine done what he did for Political purposes, not religious... It was a power and control play.

Here are the actual canons of Nicaea, condensed to fit an ATS page;
Canon 1
If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself…no such person should be promoted.
Canon 2
…men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while… as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism..
Canon 3
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.
Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together.
Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others
Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges..
Canon 7
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Canon 8
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy..
Canon 9
If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, such the canon does not admit.
Canon 10
If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church; for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.
Canon 11
Concerning those who have fallen … during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, they shall be dealt with mercifully..
Canon 12
As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit [cautious merciful treatment]
Canon 13
Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum.
Canon 14
Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.
Canon 15
the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city.
Canon 16
presbyters, nor deacons, and others enrolled among the clergy, who shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by no means to be received by another church;.
Canon 17
if after this decree any one among the clergy be found to receive usury… he shall be deposed from the clergy
Canon 18
let the deacons remain within their own bounds…Let hem receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let not the deacons sit among the presbyters,
Canon 19
Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized;.
Canon 20
Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day … it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

[Obviously the problem is that conspiracy theorists are tending to blame the Council for anything about the church that they don't like, while knowing nothing about what they actually did]

And this is the letter which the Council sent to the church at Alexandria, about their decisions;

To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea, wish health in the Lord .
Forasmuch as the great and holy Synod, which was assembled at Niece through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign Constantine, who brought us together from our several provinces and cities, has considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it seemed to us to be necessary that certain things should be communicated from us to you in writing, so that you might have the means of knowing what has been mooted and investigated, and also what has been decreed and confirmed.
First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.
But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or parish, and have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander. So that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in the Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to succeed to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall appear to be worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the bishop of Alexandria shall concur in the election and ratify it. This concession has been made to all the rest; but, on account of his disorderly conduct from the first, and the rashness and precipitation of his character, the same decree was not made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor privilege should be conceded to him.
These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to the most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most honoured lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has been enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to you in greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow-worker in what has been done.
We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.
Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common peace and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive with the greater honour and with increased love, our colleague your Bishop Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at so great an age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be established among you and all of us. Pray also for us all, that the things which have been deemed advisable may stand fast; for they have been done, as we believe, to the well-pleasing of Almighty God and of his only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

What you have at Nicea is the outworking of the Empire. Look at all of the articles listed by Disraeli. The majority are these corporation type functions. Antioch will continue to be your overlord, and Rome your over overlord, thanks to our great benefactor Constantine.

What you see here is nothing like the body of Christ that is spoken of by Paul and in the gospels. This has nothing to do with Pauls version vs. Jesus'/gospels version of Jesus. This has to do with Power. "Call no man FAther" became "bless me father for I have sinned, its been 30 seconds since my last confession"

What happened at Nicea was just a continuation of the "great falling away". The replacement of Christ as the head of the body, with clergy. There were no hierarchies in the early design of the ecclesia. Well besides possibly the pastorals, but those are likely not original Pauline writings, but later additions. Though even there the presbyter is one who serves people. Not one who is served.

Nicea is just another brick in the wall

originally posted by: zardust
Antioch will continue to be your overlord, and Rome your over overlord,

We musn't exaggerate the place of Rome.
That canon actually means "Alexandria will supervise the adjacent provinces, just as Rome supervises its own adjacent provinces."
This council has certainly not heard about the overall supremacy of Rome.

P.S. Also, to be fair, I should point out that two of those canons (15 & 16) are strying to STOP the growing practice of church leadership being treated as a career path, with "promotions" from one city to another. In their ideal, a man would become a leader in his home church and then stay there.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The place of leadership was never to be a career. The place of man was never to be head over another man. Paul was a tentmaker, and he made tents. He did not sit in his fancy robes in a citadel. He lived and worked with the people. There may have been some who still held to that ideal by Nicea, but that was not the rule, it was the exception.

The living body became the decaying church. Nicea wasn't the beginning or end, just another stop along the way. It was like the Patriot Act. Not the beginning of the problem, nor the last straw, just another brick in the wall.

Power, Lording, Money you have it all represented in the council. Arius was just another innocent bystander in the push to rebuild the temple hierarchy. Origen was also anathematized a couple councils later by a completely corrupt Justinian. This should make any historian lol. And take a second look at what happened at Nicea.

I'm not saying these men were all conspirators in some scheme to corrupt the church. But they were already living within the corrupt and sclerotic structure of hierarchy now called the church. These councils are a symptom of that disease. They were no different than the well meaning church goers now with all of their programs, and committees.

You are correct Rome was not at this time the central power. But this was one of the first major declarations that cemented Romes power, the fact that the empire sanctioned and paid for the council should raise eyebrows. Jesus was the first to be for separation of church and state

Marcion was a gnostic who rejected the teaching, Jesus was God, God (Jehovah) was a different God to Jesus. He depicted the Old Testament God of as a tyrant, understandable if you consider a judge or a policeman doing his duty as a tyrant.
he was one of the main reasons for the Nicean council

A few very late written letters and "gospels" had shown up and were being passed as "true" gospels

The Gnostic gospels are writings by early "Christian" Gnostics. After the first century of Christianity, two primary divisions developed - the orthodox and the Gnostics. The orthodox Christians held to books we now have in the Bible and to what is today considered orthodox theology. The Gnostic Christians, if they can truly be described as Christians, held a distinctly different view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, of salvation, and of virtually every other major Christian doctrine. However, they did not have any writings by the Apostles to give legitimacy to their beliefs.

That is why and how the Gnostic gospels were created. The Gnostics fraudulently attached the names of famous Christians to their writings, such as the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, the gospel of Mary, etc. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in northern Egypt in 1945 represented a major discovery of Gnostic gospels. These Gnostic gospels are often pointed to as supposed "lost books of the Bible."

Read more: www.gotquestions.org...




Some of the teachings were unusual and unsupported and definitely not related to the Old Testament but basically the main issue was their belief, Jesus was not the OT God

Gnostics also believed that the material world (matter) is evil and that only the spirit is good. They constructed an evil God and beings of the Old Testament to explain the creation of the world (matter), and considered Jesus Christ a wholly spiritual God.
christianity.about.com...



Anyway the church at the time gathered all the scriptures together and rejected the newer material. The Nicean council decided what should be kept and what should be classified as not Christian.
Scriptures that was already in distribution and was common knowledge as the word, common as accepted as true Christian teachings was accepted.
The gnostic gospels were noted and then rejected as they taught an alternative view of Jesus.

The funny thing is how many non-christians carry on about the Nicean council and how they chose what went in to the bible, its absurd and nonsense.
The Gospels and Epistles were all readily accepted and recognised before Nicea, they were just ratified as legitimate there.
The books not ratified are still in existence today and no one has outlawed them or destroyed them from history. Those books are still in circulation and can still be accessed.

Those who chose what should be considered canon and what was not, placed a great deal of effort in to working out what should be left out.
Unlike most religious texts the bible is eye witness testimony.
Unlike say the Koran or the book of mormon, there is very little in the way of visions or dreams, cept the Book of Revelations, something a few at the council considered as unacceptable.

The Nicean council did not change anything or destroy anything, just decided what scripture should be considered legitimate.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When all else fails, why not read the documents from the Council? You will find them online here.

As the first worldwide ecumenical Council, Christianity just recently having been legalized by Constantine, they were concerned with two issues -- the heresy of Arius, who taught that Christ was a created being, not God, and the date on which Easter should be celebrated. That was it. Apart from casual discussions, there is no evidence that the canon of the Bible was ever discussed, the most commonly held misconception about Nicaea.

As for whether Constantine directed the Council, he did not -- he said that he wasn't a theologian, and he didn't care how the Arian controversy was resolved, he just wanted unity within the church. By all accounts, he had next to nothing to do with the proceedings, leaving it to the Bishops to work out, and he'd have been just as content if the Council had ruled in Arius' favour.

a reply to: borntowatch

Marcion was a gnostic who rejected the teaching, Jesus was God, God (Jehovah) was a different God to Jesus. He depicted the Old Testament God of as a tyrant, understandable if you consider a judge or a policeman doing his duty as a tyrant.
he was one of the main reasons for the Nicean council

Um… no.

Marcion wasn't a Gnostic, though he had many of the same beliefs that Gnostic Christians would later hold (Gnostic Christians post-dated Marcion by about 25 years.) And he had nothing to do with Nicaea, which was held about 200 years after Marcion came, and went, from the Christian scene. Marcion was, essentially, the first anti-Semitic Christian, who ignored the fact that Jesus was Jewish, and taught a Christianity that expunged its Jewish roots.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It seems to me the Arius didn't believe He was God at all based on this source.

He just had a different way of defining "god" than we do today, after so many centuries under the rule of Athanasius.
John 3:16 calls Jesus the begotten son.
Athanasius decided that Jesus must be declared "un-begotten".

a reply to: Akragon

That is not correct... Arius believed Jesus was God, just not the Father... or equal to the father as HE actually said...

Arius, before the coming to power of the social climber, Athanasius, was considered the greatest defender of the Trinity in Christendom.
What eventually ended up prevailing under force of arms was the Athanasian version that was based on current philosophy of his time, without regard to either the Bible, or Christian tradition.