A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. We very definitely know why the Council of Nicea was called, which was to seek doctrinal unity on an issue that was tearing the church apart (the nature of Jesus).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Council of Nicaea"

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

Well, it came hundreds of years after Jesus was dead, so this is kind of obvious.

in that situation wasn't it (Council of Nicaea) itself a heretic perception, please right?

Regards

It depends on the point of view. From the point of view of the Christian Church, the WHOLE POINT of the council was to DETERMINE which view was orthodox and which was heretical. For the Church, the bishops at this council did have the authority to determine orthodoxy. This means that from the standpoint of Christianity, the idea that Jesus was God is the official orthodox position.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

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.

It was a tool used by God to shape His message.

 

[LuisDantas]

It was a tool used by God to shape His message.

Any thoughts on what, if anything, it means that not everyone agreed with its conclusions? Or that there was a significant disagreement in the first place?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Any thoughts on what, if anything, it means that not everyone agreed with its conclusions? Or that there was a significant disagreement in the first place?

It’s irrelevant whether they disagreed or not.

They weren’t in charge, God was and His word is expressed exactly how He wants it.

The methods He used to get it done don’t matter. I’m sure He did it this way for a reason known only to Him.

 

[anna.]

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?

Sufficiently, although I'm not a theologian or a historian; but as a Catholic, I say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, so it's a presence in my life. Although there have been some changes made, even relatively recently, most of what we say today is said in the words of 1700 years ago.

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.

Yes, in my opinion, because there was a need for a unified creed that defined belief, rather than defining heresy.

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

Yes, even though the filioque was a centuries-long division even before the great schism.

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

For Christians who profess the Creed, yes. I think perhaps non-mainline Christians who might believe in its precepts point by point might not want to associate with something they see as very Catholic and/or liturgical in origin.

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?

Not today. In an inquisition-era church, yes.

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's possible, in a butterfly effect way.

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 was a big deal then, and for many hundreds of years. In this era, not so much. For the Catholic each successive council continued to shape the church. Since the Great Schism and the reformation, the councils only affect the Catholic Church, so the effect is more muted now.

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.

Would be interested. Even if you've commented on them often enough, for those like me who aren't here regularly enough to have seen them it would be helpful to know where you're coming from.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

Hope I had something useful to add. I doubt it, but maybe there's something useful in there. : )

 

[LuisDantas]

It’s irrelevant whether they disagreed or not.

They weren’t in charge, God was and His word is expressed exactly how He wants it.

The methods He used to get it done don’t matter. I’m sure He did it this way for a reason known only to Him.

Feels like you are saying that the Christian God is all that matters in Christianity, and the thoughts and beliefs of Christians are utterly irrelevant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, even though the filioque was a centuries-long division even before the great schism.

The division certainly existed. I have no idea of how significant, how serious it was.

Divisions in matters of faith will always exist, but they do not have to be meaningful in a collective scale.

For a Christian example, let's take the Eucharist. Technically, there are at least three mutually exclusive stances of faith to be applied there: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Real Presence.

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Consubstantiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If we take matters seriously enough, at least two of those are herectic and at most one is orthodox; which is which will vary across Christian Churches even today.

However, how much does that matter? In all sincerity, I would say that it matters very little and I strongly suspect that it does and should matter very little indeed even to very devout Christians.

Similar, even much greater examples of unresolved disagreement without too much practical consequence exist elsewhere as well.

The bottom line is that I don't think that true resolution of certain matters of belief is possible even within an Orthodoxy - and even if it is, it will often not be at all worth the trouble, cost and consequences.

Maybe there were very good reasons to establish that Homoousianism (the doctrine that Jesus is of the same essence as God) would be recognized as orthodox belief while Arianism and other stances such as Adoptionism (among many other beliefs thereby deemed herectic) should be rejected. But those reasons seem to me to be far more justifiable on political grounds than on doctrinary (let alone religious) ones.

Why? Mainly because religion as I understand it is requires the active participation of the adherent. Being a receiver of transmitted doctrine makes one aware of that doctrine, not necessarily a believer and IMO definitely does not in and of itself make anyone an actual religious person.

And at the end of the day whether one believes or even cares about such esoteric matters is a very personal thing. So is whether they have any meaning, and which that meaning would be.

Religion proper has very little to do with any of that, and less reason to want to convince others that there must be one true answer for everyone.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Feels like you are saying that the Christian God is all that matters in Christianity, and the thoughts and beliefs of Christians are utterly irrelevant.

Well of course that’s what I am saying.

People don’t get to believe whatever they want to if you are a Christian. If that were the case they’d be Jews.

 

[F1fan]

It was a tool used by God to shape His message.

Why can't God do his own work?

Why rely on fallible sinners to do important work?

Is it possible that the Bible was actually just written by humans claiming it came from God, and then the Counsels was more human acts to hone down the overly broad range of stories to be more cohesive and managable?

Well of course that’s what I am saying.

People don’t get to believe whatever they want to if you are a Christian. If that were the case they’d be Jews.

But Christians DO believe in whatever they are exposed to, and want. Catholicsm is vastly different than protestantism. And even the many protestant sects vary from liberal, to moderate, to conservative, to extreme. So there is obviously an option to any Christian to pick their faith from the buffet of Christianity.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Why can't God do his own work?

Why rely on fallible sinners to do important work?

Is it possible that the Bible was actually just written by humans claiming it came from God, and then the Counsels was more human acts to hone down the overly broad range of stories to be more cohesive and managable?


But Christians DO believe in whatever they are exposed to, and want. Catholicsm is vastly different than protestantism. And even the many protestant sects vary from liberal, to moderate, to conservative, to extreme. So there is obviously an option to any Christian to pick their faith from the buffet of Christianity.

Sure people can choose to worship differently but they cannot decide if Jesus is God or not or whatever is specifically addressed in the Bible.

 

[F1fan]

Sure people can choose to worship differently

It's not just worshipping differently, it is about inconsistency in what Christians claim is truth. The ideas vary drastically, and te "truth" is inconsistent.

but they cannot decide if Jesus is God

But they do. There is disagreement. You didn't even mention the Trinity which is a huge issue. Who's right and who's wrong? Is it possible no Christian is correct in what they believe?

or not or whatever is specifically addressed in the Bible.

Yet some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis even when Jews don't. So it's clear Christians do believe in things from the Bible that is factually incorrect. So that opens the door to questioning Christians for anything they claim is true, or truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well of course that’s what I am saying.

People don’t get to believe whatever they want to if you are a Christian. If that were the case they’d be Jews.

Thanks for the honesty.

You have just spelled out one of my main objections to the teaching of Christianity to children.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure people can choose to worship differently but they cannot decide if Jesus is God or not or whatever is specifically addressed in the Bible.

More like they can't avoid the decision, really.

Whatever the Bible or any other text, tradition, authority or doctrine might say, each individual person will ultimately have to decide how to interpret those; how much prestige - if any - they will lend to those interpretations, how consistently, and how and whether they will be reconciled with other competing claims.

It is an unavoidable if often neglected and disregarded personal responsibility.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

More like they can't avoid the decision, really.

Whatever the Bible or any other text, tradition, authority or doctrine might say, each individual person will ultimately have to decide how to interpret those; how much prestige - if any - they will lend to those interpretations, how consistently, and how and whether they will be reconciled with other competing claims.

It is an unavoidable if often neglected and disregarded personal responsibility.

Definitely

 

[metis]

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.

1. Pretty much.

2. Yes, largely because of the splinter groups emerging.

3. Mixed bag as there were many points of conjecture.

4. Some, yes.

5. The persecution of those with different beliefs when church & state got combined was horrendous.

6. Splintering was both an exercise in intellectual freedom but also confused the issues as most people are not theologians. Again, a mixed bag imo.

7. There are almost no slam-dunks within religious circles, and sometimes these differences led to oppression and also war.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sufficiently, although I'm not a theologian or a historian; but as a Catholic, I say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, so it's a presence in my life. Although there have been some changes made, even relatively recently, most of what we say today is said in the words of 1700 years ago.

I'm not a Catholic, but due to these sorts of discussion, I try to stay abreast of what's happening.

My understanding is that there are only two versions of the Nicene Creed, one with the filoque for Catholics, and one without the filioque for the Orthodox. These are in the Greek language.

The only thing that has "changed" regarding the Creed is that there is argument over how to best translate it into English. After googling, what I found is that back in the 20th century, the Catholic church translated it "one in being with the Father." In this century, Catholics say "consubstantial with the Father." This is not the Creed changing -- there is only one Greek version. It is only the English translation of the text that is different.

 

[metis]

There's an inconsistency within the Nicene Creed dealing with Jesus' and the Father's relationship, and this was to bring those in Arianism aboard-- and it worked.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
"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?

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

Also for friend @LuisDantas, please.
Council of Nicaea was one among many (Paulines and Zionists) heretical endeavours, I understand, as both of these hide what Yeshua's mission actually was, his teachings and deeds, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

paarsurrey said:
"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?

Also for friend @LuisDantas, please.
Council of Nicaea was one among many (Paulines and Zionists) heretical endeavours, I understand, as both of these hide what Yeshua's mission actually was, his teachings and deeds, please, right?

Regards

The council of Nicea happened several hundred years after Jesus. Since he was long dead, there is no way of knowing how he would feel about it, although given that he was a Jew, I would say that the odds are very great he is rolling over in his grave.

I don't think any of this is relevant for Christians. In their view, the "holy spirit" is still active and guiding the church.

I'm not sure why you mention Zionists. The Zionist movement didn't exist until the 1900s. Did you mean Zealots by chance?