It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What really happened at Nicea(Nicaea)?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The collective intellect of ATS knows it was not a good event, it comes in at number 20 as a historical conspiracy.
What was established and orchestrated by a then Pagan emperor did not bode well for Christianity going forward.
It is infamous for establishing the Trinity.





posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
No, it is "infamous" for declaring, once and for all, that Jesus was a divine being, not a created creature. Anti-Trinitarians misrepresent what the Council was in regards to, but the Trinity had been a core part of Christian teaching for a long time prior to Nicaea.

See this: Development of Trinity Doctrine: 100-325 AD. That's the history, not 20th Century Anti-Trinitarian historical revisionism.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

I see no real evidence of a trinity in that link you provided... that is merely a refutation of JW doctrine

The fact remains which they are correct in saying... there is no evidence of a trinity teaching in the NT... aside from a few later additions that were designed to support said trinity

Also it is a fact that the trinity makes Jesus equal to the Father, and no such words EVER came from the mouth of Jesus... He remained submissive to the Father and maintained that the Father was Greater then HE


Even after he passed Jesus said he would sit at the right hand of God... not take over as God... which seems to be what the trinity says in some Christian doctrines




edit on 17-8-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


there is no evidence of a trinity teaching in the NT… aside from a few later additions that were designed to support said trinity

What "later additions"? Do you have a copy of the Bible that doesn't include them?

The Trinity is implicit in the New Testament (and foreshadowed in the Old,) probably because the authors of the Gospels didn't see the need to spell it out -- the early Christians worshipped Christ as God, and that's probably because it was taken for granted that that's who he was. The actual Doctrine of the Trinity came about as later generations, who didn't have first hand experience with Christ or the Apostles, started to wonder why the earlier generations worshiped Christ as God, if he was distinctive from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and questions arose as to the monotheistic nature of Christianity.

In other words, those closest to Christ simply understood him to be God, as time went past, people needed something to explain it.

Tertullian was one of the first Christian writers to directly address the matter and was the one who coined the term "Trinity", well over a hundred years prior to Nicaea.


Tertullian was the first Christian writer to face a serious attack concerning the nature of God. In response, he outlined a formula summarising the Biblical teaching on this, and was the first to use the word trinitas in a technical way to describe the relation of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The work is question is Adv. Praxean, but he also uses the term in De Pudicitia 2, and 21, and 25. He also was the first to use the word persona for the persons of the Trinity. However Tertullian's pioneering work in this area does not always avoid tending to make the Son subordinate to the Father, no doubt because the issue was not in his mind at the time. In Adv. Hermogenes 4 he makes a statement that there was a time when the Son did not exist, but the context again suggests that the statement is an inadvertence drawn forth by his argument about the appropriate titulature of the persons of the Trinity, rather than a doctrinal statement. (Source)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

It may have been in development but it was being fought as well, because it was so controversial, at the Council the Trinitarians basically won. If it wasn't in development they couldn't have just dropped it on the agenda cold like that.
But what they won was establishing false doctrine. And the ability to squash any dissenting voice in the future.
By the number of adherents to it, I say they did a good job, but that doesn't make it correct.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


It may have been in development but it was being fought as well, because it was so controversial, at the Council the Trinitarians basically won.

Well, that's the way doctrine develops. Someone proposes something, lays out the case for it, and it is either accepted or rejected. If it is rejected, but continues to be taught, that person is a heretic and they are kicked out of the church, which is what happened to Arius and his supporters. He didn't make his case, and has gone down in history as one of the greatest heretics of all time.


But what they won was establishing false doctrine.

That is simply your opinion. As the follower of another religion, it is not surprising that you would disagree with a core tenant of Christianity, but it does not validate your claim.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

People need to read about this and think about it, if they haven't made there minds up yet.

First Council of Nicaea

Here is an interesting excerpt about what an Emperor did to keep the peace in his realm.


Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops. The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile.


Constantine crushed the debate that still existed, and instilled fear in any believers of Jesus being just the Son of God and not Almighty God in flesh. It took Centuries to recover from that blow, done to true Christianity by a then Pagan Emperor.

This is really painful to hear for any Catholic, but Paul couldn't be talking about anybody else but the Catholic Clergy that would arise after he was gone in Acts 20: 28-31


So guard yourselves and God’s people. Feed and shepherd God’s flock—his church, purchased with his own bloodh—over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders. 29 I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. 30 Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following. 31 Watch out! Remember the three years I was with you—my constant watch and care over you night and day, and my many tears for you.



About 98 C.E., the apostle John wrote: “There have come to be many antichrists; . . . They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.” (1 John 2:18, 19) By the third century, apostasy had led to the development of the clergy class of Christendom, and in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine gave official recognition to this corrupt form of “Christianity.” By adopting pagan rituals and giving them a “Christian” veneer, religious leaders did indeed “distort the truth” The effects of that apostasy are still seen in the teachings and customs of Christendom. This is the sad reality.
edit on 18-8-2014 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Here is an interesting excerpt about what an Emperor did to keep the peace in his realm.

What is so interesting about that?

As I and others have pointed out before, Constantine wasn't a theologian and didn't care whether the Council sided with Arius or against him. Arguments were made, the Bishops of the church decided who made the better argument and Constantine supported their decision.

That's how doctrine is established, that is how the Bible says it is supposed to be done, and that's what happened.

Cut and dry. Arius lost in a fair fight and the Christian church is Trinitarian. Get over it.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Where does the Bible say that doctrine is supposed to be established by a vote, then enforced by the Empire?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: zardust

The structure of the church is clearly defined in scripture -- Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, with the authority of teaching in those leaders, who are instructed to expose false teaching and kick heretics out of the church. As for Constantine's end, again, he was doing what the church told him to do, not the other way around.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Disregarding the fact that the Patoral letters are most likely not written by Paul, and are from the early 2nd century, the concept of "Deacons" as a part of the hierarchy is unfounded IMO.

Here are the 3 uses from 1 Tim where we get the supposed office of deacon:

[1Ti 3:8, 12 RSV] 8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain; ... 12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
[1Ti 4:6 RSV] 6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Notice the word diakonos is translated as minister in 4:6

Lets look at the usage throughout the rest of the NT. The word is most often translated as servant or minister

[Mat 20:26 RSV] 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
[Jhn 2:5 RSV] 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
[Rom 15:8 RSV] 8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
[2Co 11:23 RSV] 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one--I am talking like a madman--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.
[Gal 2:17 RSV] 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not!

The word deacon is a transliteration. The translation is servant, which is what is being talked about, not a position held by a person. This word is about all christians. Try replacing deacon in the verses above. It sounds foolish. But if you put servant or minister in where the word deacon was transliterated instead of translated like it should have been it still makes sense. What you have here is doctrinal bias in the translation. The word deacon went from a descriptive word to a place holder/position.

This is a perfect example of the difference between the body (ecclesia) of Christ and the "church". All are called to be servants of Christ as that is the task of a christian. But along came the religionists and had to reinstitute the hierarchy. So we have servants becoming deacons, which are positions that are voted on, by whom? Board members of the corporation, I mean bishops?

A bishop(episcope) is to be a guardian or overseer or visitor. Again this is any mature christian, not an office. There is no mention anywhere of a corporate structure. Except one. Which flies in the face of the papacy. (though I really like Francis)

Christ is the head of the body. We are jointly fitted together as members of the body. There is no distinction or honors to be given to these men. They are servants, visitors (the word episcope is translated as visitation once). Not men that sit in towers fluffed up in their fancy robes and gold goblets. Not men driving their Benzes around town while their laity suffers. There was never supposed to be a clergy in the New Covenant. There is no laity. All are priests. All are servants. The barrier of dividing was broken down between male, female, jew, gentile, greek, barbarian, servant, master. To reintroduce a static hierarchy that removes christ as the head of the body (call no man father), and institutes men in offices over and above a laity is anathema. To anathemize is anathema as far as I'm concerned. To vote on an issue then basically cast out those who dissent is anathema.

That is going in the opposite direction that the New Covenant is going. Buildings and rituals and services and clergy and programs and short term mission trips, and giant churches with coffee sipping yuppees, and ____________. All the things that the institution does is not how the body is meant to function. We are to be one, united under the headship of christ, and yet we are creating divisions and factions again?

Christ in you is the hope of glory. You don't need to go to a building to find it. You don't need to be told by a robed eunuch how to find it. You don't need a "pastor" to find it. (don't get me started on the "office" of pastor and the unbiblical nature of that whole thing). Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I will manifest. We are the church. It is not a place, or an institution. It is a body of living stones jointly fitted together with the chief cornerstone being our head.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust

If you honestly don't believe that the Bible establishes authority in the leadership of the churches, then I don't know what Bible you are reading.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

There is a difference between a servant leader, you know the one who dies for his flock, and a robed bishop sitting in his citadel. Just as there is a difference between churches and "the church" aka the ecclesia. The institution vs. the living body.

Read a little bit about the early church and the pastorals, and you will see the concept of hierarchy and positions amongst the early church was completely foreign. This is one of the reasons that the majority of bible scholars reject Pauline authorship of the pastorals. He wasn't alive to see this abomination. It was completely foreign to the apostles.



edit on 18 8 2014 by zardust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust

I'm quite familiar with early church history.

Get a copy of Eusebius' Church History, he's got Bishops in there listed back to the Apostolic Age.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Then you would know that there was no heirarchy prior to the 2nd century after all the apostles had died.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust

You don't believe that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, that the Apostles were evangelists and leaders of churches, and James, the brother of Jesus, was the head of the church of Jerusalem?


But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. - Church History II.1.3-5

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day....He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel...
- Church History II.23.5-6

James the Just, brother of the Lord, chosen by the Apostles to be the Bishop of Jerusalem. A named Bishop in the First Century, prior to 70AD.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

My point is that a "bishop", or overseer, guardian is nothing like what is called a bishop now. Just as the functions of the church now look nothing like what it did for the apostles.

I can call myself a bishop but if its nothing like what was written about in the bible then they are not the same thing. In the same way just because James was called a bishop by Eusubius (250 years later), does not = a roman catholic bishop.

I'm not just picking on the Roman church here. The protestants with their Pastors (and hierarchy) are just as faulty. The word pastor occurs once in the bible. Well the greek word that is translated pastor appears 18 times. It is translated as shepherd the other times, as that is what it means.

What it does not mean is the head of a church (again removing the headship of Christ), that preaches a sermon every sunday and directs the church. The CEO so to speak.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust


In the same way just because James was called a bishop by Eusubius (250 years later), does not = a roman catholic bishop.

Sorry, I don't see how they are any different. James was called a governing Bishop by earlier writers that Eusibius was quoting in his history. He led the local church, may have led the global church in the way that the Bishop of Rome now leads the global Catholic church, and though he was not an Apostle, the church thought enough of his teaching to include his epistle in the canon. The establishment of the office of Deacon is apparently what we see happening in Acts 6, with the Apostles and teachers of the word saying that those seven needed to be appointed to some sort of office that was beneath them.

Thus, we have James, the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Jerusalem church, the Apostles, who were the teachers of the word, the Presbyters (later "Priest" was used) under the Bishop and the Deacons, who were the assistants of those above them. In the earliest church, each congregation had a Bishop, that later changed to one Bishop presiding over multiple churches, but it was still the same office.

So there is scriptural and historical evidence that there was a church hierarchy, quite early, and certainly before the end of the Apostolic Age.


edit on 18-8-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Not really considering the contemporary usage of diakonos did not mean an office, as seen in its wide usage as servant. Eusubius calling it an office 200 years later doesn't negate the fact that the time the NT was written (barring the pastorals) the word was being used as servant and not as an office. I guess you could say Deacons are servants now. Kind of like how our politicians are called public servants.

Let me ask you a question was Jesus holding an office as the minister to the circumcision?

Here is another, if all christians are called to be a nation of priests where does that leave room for office of priest?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust


Let me ask you a question was Jesus holding an office as the minister to the circumcision?

I'm not sure that I understand your question, sorry. Christ is the founder and head of the church, but I don't know what circumcision has to do with that, so I guess no.


Here is another, if all christians are called to be a nation of priests where does that leave room for office of priest?

In a general sense, we're all disciples and ministers to one another, but not in a formal sense.

I should make clear that I am very much in favour of a church hierarchy and a centralized theological authority. One of the key reasons that I converted to the Catholic church was my disdain for the Methodist approach, which set some guidelines (which could change once every four years, based on what the General Conference attendees voted for,) but pretty much let every pastor run their church as they pleased, so if you had a liberal pastor, you'd have a much different message preached in the pulpit than if you had a conservative one.

So, no, I don't subscribe to a church structure in which "everyone is a priest", where everyone believes whatever they want, and whether it's Biblical, supportable or even sensible doesn't matter.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join