A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

[LuisDantas]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

I'm open to learning and seeing different perspectives but I'm familiar with the history.

Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

Yes. Unity was desperately needed.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

Absolutely

Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

Yes. It gave clarity and certainly.

Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

Yes. It limited diversity of thought. However that wasn't necessary a bad thing 1700 years ago.

Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

No idea

How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

Every community, family or faith needs to have rules and consequences. It seems pointless imagining how it could have been different. It laid the foundation for the Gospel of Christ to be spread throughout the earth and with it the advancement of civilization.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you elaborate on this unity that you see as connected to the Council, @Dawnofhope ?

What was its nature? Why was it welcome? To which extent was it achieved?

As I understand it, the Council established an orthodoxy, not unity as such. Several if not most heresies survived for centuries after the Council, and not for lack of opportunity to learn of the Council's decisions.

Am I correct in assuming that you see the existence of a clearly defined orthodoxy, with well established religious authorities and the ability to declare support, recognition and acknowledgement of political leaderships, as welcome or even fully necessary at least at that point in time?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Can you elaborate on this unity that you see as connected to the Council, @Dawnofhope ?

What was its nature? Why was it welcome? To which extent was it achieved?

As I understand it, the Council established an orthodoxy, not unity as such. Several if not most heresies survived for centuries after the Council, and not for lack of opportunity to learn of the Council's decisions.

Am I correct in assuming that you see the existence of a clearly defined orthodoxy, with well established religious authorities and the ability to declare support, recognition and acknowledgement of political leaderships, as welcome or even fully necessary at least at that point in time?

The most important aspect from my limited view is that is the Council of Nicea provided a clear theological framework and narrative that most of the Christian leaders could agree on.

It was also important that the Roman emperor Constantine brought the Council together. Having a Christian emperor turned the tide massively for Christianity. It moved from being a persecuted minority religion.

Christianity began to influence the political sphere and the political sphere influenced Christianity. It was an inevitable and necessary development IMHO. There are parallels with the development of Judaism but eventually on a much broader scale with Christianity. When Islam emerged a few centuries later the process of religion and political rule working in synergy developed further.

The Council of Nicea was arguably an essential stepping stone for the growth of Christianity into a world religion. Christianity would eventually become an integral part of Civilization, both Western and Eastern.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

"Council of Nicaea"

It was never supported by Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards

 

[Tomef]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

As Christians became a large group that also contained diverse ideas about Jesus, it was inevitable that some kind of ‘official version’ would be imposed. The church in Rome had more authority than satellite churches, which perhaps is the main reason why its version of Christianity won out.

 

[sun rise]

From a non-Christian viewpoint:

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

It's human nature for that tendency to occur. Most people want certainty about what is true versus false, good vs bad. So psychologically something like that council was inevitable.

This is a much more trivial example but it shows how the psychology works: As a more recent example, Meher Baba once told someone not to eat eggplant in the strongest possible terms. Some people took that as gospel truth and did not realize that another time he told someone to send eggplant for them to eat. So now we have people refusing to eat eggplant because once Meher Baba told someone not to do it for health reasons.

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

Heresy is another psychological realm topic related to good vs evil. It manifests as "you're not a real Christian (Muslim, Jew) unless you believe what we believe and act as we act. The word "heresy" gets applied to those who think and act differently.

 

[Mister Emu]

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

Yes.

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

Something comparable had already happened in Jersualem under the apostles, where the debate over gentiles in the Church was hashed out.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

As a credal Christian, I believe this was helpful for both the movement and the individuals to be guided in the truth. Practically, bringing the Church together in the council helped ensure that the faith remained largely united.

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

It seems doubtful that the council of Nicaea could have come to a different conclusion, even discounting the faith position that God protects the councils. Especially given the context and timing of Nicaea, where several bishops who came still bore the scars of persecution for holding on to the faith; they were unlikely to budge.

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

The idea of heresy, while potentially not fully fleshed out, was already present within the Church, from the apostles and in the canon. The Council did end up giving secular support to determinations of heresy, which impacted how heresy and heretics were handled; it shaped the dangers people face in being called a heretic and likely stunted some theological development, which is not a good thing.

 

[Heyo]

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

Early Christians didn't believe it was necessary, because Jesus was expected to return next Tuesday. After nearly 300 years, they suspected it might not happen. It tells something about the Christian's faith that it didn't happen earlier. Some Christians still believe in the Second Coming "in their lifetime".
/s

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

Very much so, yes.

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

When you consider that Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning right belief, and that the stakes of having the right belief is your immortal soul (according to Christians) I think it was inevitable that Christian bishops would determine which views are orthodoxy.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

Well, obviously, since 1700 years later, it's still here.

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

Indirectly. It created a more stable church, and individuals simply do better with such stability.

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

Sure. For example, you could argue that Jesus was NOT God, and that therefore developing Trinitarianism was idolatry.

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

I'm very reluctant to answer what ifs. You never know what hidden factors may be at work, and even a wise guess may turn out to be wrong.

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

Personally? I don't think God really cares if we make intellectual errors. I think God is interested in how we treat each other, whether we love our neighbor as ourselves. I think that Christianity, by focusing so closely on belief, is missing the boat.

 

[mangalavara]

"Council of Nicaea"

It was never supported by Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

I imagine that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking around in Nicaea in 325 AD, he would not have commended the council. Something that I’ve noticed in both the synoptic gospels and John’s gospel is the absence of creeds and concerns about orthodox doctrine. In those texts, Jesus preaches the good news of the kingdom of God and teaches a new way of life. Interestingly, he argues with the Pharisees about few of their doctrines. What he condemns them for is not their doctrines but their deeds. So, I think that Jesus would not have ‘stamped’ the Nicene Creed with his ‘seal of approval’ due to it being irrelevant with respect to his message.

Heresy is another psychological realm topic related to good vs evil. It manifests as "you're not a real Christian (Muslim, Jew) unless you believe what we believe and act as we act.

With the idea of heresy in Christianity, we see Christianity as arguably the most divided religion in the world.

Personally? I don't think God really cares if we make intellectual errors. I think God is interested in how we treat each other, whether we love our neighbor as ourselves. I think that Christianity, by focusing so closely on belief, is missing the boat.

I agree with everything you say here though I’m not one to use the ‘love our neighbor’ phrase. I suspect that if Christianity were more of a way of life—one focused on the canonical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and a mystic spirituality—than an orthodoxy, the Gandhis of the world might say, ‘I love Jesus and his followers.’

 

[paarsurrey]

I imagine that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking around in Nicaea in 325 AD, he would not have commended the council. Something that I’ve noticed in both the synoptic gospels and John’s gospel is the absence of creeds and concerns about orthodox doctrine. In those texts, Jesus preaches the good news of the kingdom of God and teaches a new way of life. Interestingly, he argues with the Pharisees about few of their doctrines. What he condemns them for is not their doctrines but their deeds. So, I think that Jesus would not have ‘stamped’ the Nicene Creed with his ‘seal of approval’ due to it being irrelevant with respect to his message.



With the idea of heresy in Christianity, we see Christianity as arguably the most divided religion in the world.



I agree with everything you say here though I’m not one to use the ‘love our neighbor’ phrase. I suspect that if Christianity were more of a way of life—one focused on the canonical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and a mystic spirituality—than an orthodoxy, the Gandhis of the world might say, ‘I love Jesus and his followers.’

I rated one's post as "Winner" for the response comments to my post, please.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm starting to feel a desire to create another thread with questions about unity and orthodoxy, and their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

I am aware of some aspects of its influence, but this was never taught to me. I have encountered people commenting about it and read things pertaining to it.

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

When I learned that the bishops disputed who would be in charge, that there was a struggle even in the first century CE. When I read Ireneus brag about who had discipled him. When I read about church divisions in the baptists in USA over the last three centuries. When I considered the whole history of the church and its schizms. Then I saw everything as a pattern. I've seen modern ecumenical efforts and how intractable the conversations become. It was wasn't one thing it would have been some other thing.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

History is helpful. I think that recording the dispute is the benefit. Secondly the willingness to sit down and to endure long conversations about these things, this is more helpful than actually resolving the dispute. Its not that I don't want the dispute resolved but that the dispute hides the real issues; and you cannot get to the real issues in an open conversation. Any situation where so much diplomacy is required is one in which one or all parties are avoidant: afraid to say what they think and who they are and what they do. They are afraid to be seen and judged, and that is why this conversation about pots and pans is the most intimate connection that they can manage.

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

The council is a mystery surrounding another mystery. Nothing was resolved, but people were heard and feelings partially ameliorated. You don't always have to deal with the actual objection to make people feel respected and listened to; because people are not rational. Its not always about what we think its about. Sometimes we think we are upset about a spot on the wall when actually we are upset about something that happened in another room.

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

The council is a point of pride that a large number of people believe is important, and it is a point of pride for a lot of other people who believe it ought to be undone. The whole thing is a distraction from real problems.

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

I am trying to answer you though it may not seem so. The Church's history can be used as a scientific instrument, and it is an exploration into the forces which combine and divide people. The church is an exploration of social adhesion. The council is not even a waypoint and is more like a tick on the time meter. The substance of its conversation does not even matter. To gain the value from the History we have to look past the issues discussed and try to seek the real concerns and the real failures that cause schisms. Why are there schisms, and how can they be avoided? No society has yet answered this question, and that is what the History of the church is useful for. Society and History keep starting over, and it is too painful every time it happens. Humanity spends most of its time like a child with no parent, scrambling for scraps and information that ought to be free. The Council is an actual event, however it is not ultimately answering anything with finality. Its decision is being forgotten slowly and gradually.

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

'Heresy' is a compromise with those in society that want to control everything. Since we cannot let them control everything we give them items that they may control. Its how we compromise with them. Its like giving dogs a chew toy.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is certainly true that the Council did not and could not conceivably end heresies. Or even stop them from developing later.

Then again, I don't think it ever had that goal, or could hope to.

If anything, it may well have created or at least consolidated the perception that heresies can exist and be in some sense undesirable.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Council of Nicaea"

It was never supported/approved by Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, in that situation wasn't it (Council of Nicaea) itself a heretic perception, please right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Council of Nicaea"

It was never supported/approved by Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, in that situation wasn't it (Council of Nicaea) itself a heretic perception, please right?

Regards

Your comment shows a profound ignorance of how the church was being torn apart by its disagreements over the issue of the nature of Jesus. Some scriptures (not all) supported one view and other scriptures (not all) supported the other view. Thus, the conflict could not be resolved by looking at scriptures.

You also need to understand that the canon of scripture had not been determined yet when the Council of Nicea happened. It would be many more decades before the Bishops decided exactly which books would make up the New Testament. At the time of Nicea, different people had different lists of which books they wanted included. For example, Revelation was HOTLY disputed.

 

[Muffled]

3. I believe it did not accomplish the goal of uniting Christians in one belief. The ones holding an alternate belief still clung to their beliefs. I believe it may have been harmful in setting a precedent for an authoritative body and therefore the inquisition.

 

[Muffled]

7. I believe I am a heretic. That does not mean that I am wrong, only that my views can be disparate from the orthodox views. At least in my church the attitude is that as long as I am saved the rest will work out in the end.

 

[Muffled]

"Council of Nicaea"

It was never supported/approved by Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, in that situation wasn't it (Council of Nicaea) itself a heretic perception, please right?

Regards

I believe you have no proof of why it was endeavored.