A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

[Muffled]

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).

I believe that I mean we don't know if The Holy Spirit motivated Constantine or not. The poster was assuming He did not.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe with so many representatives, there is no way to know how many were moved by the Holy Spirit and how many were just using human reasoning.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I believe with so many representatives, there is no way to know how many were moved by the Holy Spirit and how many were just using human reasoning.

God can and does use anyone He wishes to carry out His plans. It wouldn’t matter if they were all believers or not.

 

[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 it is the organizaion in authority tht determines what is orthodox and what is heresy. At the time the church was battling the Arian and Gnostic heresies.

 

[Muffled]

God can and does use anyone He wishes to carry out His plans. It wouldn’t matter if they were all believers or not.

I believe God and the church have survived all kinds of errors but that does not mean God approves of them

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

How Jesus (if he did exist) would feel about the Council or the very idea of Heresy is impossible to establish and probably ultimately irrelevant.

For what it is worth, Luke 4:31-37 has Jesus repelling an "evil spirit" during the Sabbath, which would imply that Jesus was not all that fond of following rules.

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?

You're directing your question to one who doubts that Jesus even existed. It would be hypocritical of me to decide what Yeshua's mission was, when I believe him to always have been entirely fictional a person.

But if I must opine, I must say that the Jesus described in the Gospels seems to have little time or interest for discussions about what would be herectic and what would not be. If he believed that Heresy had any merit as an idea, he might well decide that he wanted to be a proud Herectic himself.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that I mean we don't know if The Holy Spirit motivated Constantine or not. The poster was assuming He did not.

What do you mean by "motivated Constantine"?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I believe God and the church have survived all kinds of errors but that does not mean God approves of them

Were they actually errors or part of Gods plan though?

 

[Dimi95]

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

Yes

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 , it would be strange to me if it didn't.

It is very obviois if you study all the information.

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

Only Theologically

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

Not so , it is all about doctrine and theology.
I consider religious beliefs to be personal.

If one wants to find anything helpfull then he should go back 300 years in History.

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?

Well , Theologically yes , but i would leave religious perspective aside , as i said i consider that to be very personal.

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 will agree with @IndigoChild5559 on this
What ifs is a little bit tricky.

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 to ask you , what do you know about heresy ? What does it mean when one speaks about heresy ?
I need to know what do you know before i answer , because i am shocked by how people misinterprete the word.

Btw , good questions

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to ask you , what do you know about heresy ? What does it mean when one speaks about heresy ?
I need to know what do you know before i answer , because i am shocked by how people misinterprete the word.

Heresy is just doctrine that happens to be distanced from orthodoxy.

It is probably important to determine what counts as proper doctrine for purposes of structuring a body of teachers and priests. Which is to say, it has administrative and political use.

But from a religious perspective, I see it as not inherently more nor less valid than any orthodoxy. I think that you know why: because ultimately, as you also point out, religion is a personal practice and personal responsibility.

It is conceivable that I may be unaware of some particularly dangerous doctrine that might have been discredited or at least refused recognition by First Nicaea and later Councils. But those that I know of sound rather harmless, if not quite academic.

Of course, I am no Christian, and therefore perhaps a bit too distanced from the subject matter to give it the proper weight.

Btw , good questions

Thanks!

 

[muhammad_isa]

What do you mean by "motivated Constantine"?

Historically, we know what motivated Constantine. He was a Roman Emperor.
He had to think about the unity of the Empire.

Ironically, Constantine left it until his retirement before being baptised.
He then chose an Arian relative to preside over the ceremony.

 

[Dimi95]

Heresy is just doctrine that happens to be distanced from orthodoxy.

It is probably important to determine what counts as proper doctrine for purposes of structuring a body of teachers and priests. Which is to say, it has administrative and political use.

But from a religious perspective, I see it as not inherently more nor less valid than any orthodoxy. I think that you know why: because ultimately, as you also point out, religion is a personal practice and personal responsibility.

It is conceivable that I may be unaware of some particularly dangerous doctrine that might have been discredited or at least refused recognition by First Nicaea and later Councils. But those that I know of sound rather harmless, if not quite academic.

Of course, I am no Christian, and therefore perhaps a bit too distanced from the subject matter to give it the proper weight.

Ok , this is acceptable

But i want to note that when one says 'This is Heresy' it just means that you will be given the oportunity 'to choose'.
And the one who is saying that should be able to give already established orthodox doctrine.Otherwise he has no right to say it.
Heresy doesn't mean , 'This is wrong' , it means you have a choice.
It is not a belief , it just means that you have to choose.

The use of 'This is Heresy' and 'This is Heretical' is quite different , while many think is similar in some way.

The first is already explained.

The second means practicing non-orthodox doctrine.

 

[InChrist]

How Jesus (if he did exist) would feel about the Council or the very idea of Heresy is impossible to establish and probably ultimately irrelevant.

For what it is worth, Luke 4:31-37 has Jesus repelling an "evil spirit" during the Sabbath, which would imply that Jesus was not all that fond of following rules.



You're directing your question to one who doubts that Jesus even existed. It would be hypocritical of me to decide what Yeshua's mission was, when I believe him to always have been entirely fictional a person.

But if I must opine, I must say that the Jesus described in the Gospels seems to have little time or interest for discussions about what would be herectic and what would not be. If he believed that Heresy had any merit as an idea, he might well decide that he wanted to be a proud Herectic himself.

Although, Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics.


Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here isthe Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 24:23-26

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Historically, we know what motivated Constantine. He was a Roman Emperor.
He had to think about the unity of the Empire.

I agree. I think this misunderstanding is due to English being your second langauge. What you said was that the COUNCIL motivated Constantine, when in fact the council didn't motivate him to change any policies at all. Rather, as you say above, it was the need to unify the empire that motivated Constantine. The council was the result, not the cause.

Ironically, Constantine left it until his retirement before being baptised.
He then chose an Arian relative to preside over the ceremony.

Yeppers

 

[Dimi95]

Historically, we know what motivated Constantine. He was a Roman Emperor.
He had to think about the unity of the Empire.

You have been misinformed.

First you need to learn more about this divisions and then you will be able to talk about unity

Diocletian just splitted the military and civil responsibilities, so that any crises could be handled right away. Each co-emperor would have his own army, bureaucracy, and so on. They were still all interrelated, though, and the senior of the two Augusti would be the one to set general policy.

Diocletian made the decision to subdivide the empire, because of the crisis of the 3rd century revealed problems that didn't exist before, or were there, but not noticed or addressed. But to say he simply split the empire is inaccurate
He actually made several changes to the imperial office, such that the result is called the 'dominate', rather than the older 'principate'. In many ways those changes were merely evolutions of preexisting trends, whereas others were innovations of his (the subdivision and succession systems were in the latter).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You have been misinformed.

Really? All the historians I've read agree that Constantine's primary motivation was the well being of the empire, and a large portion of that was the unity of the empire.

What is it that YOU think motivated Constantine?

Diocletian just splitted the military and civil responsibilities,

The topic was Constantine, not Diocletian.

 

[LuisDantas]

Although, Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics.


Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here isthe Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 24:23-26

That is just not my take on these matters.

Doctrine, heretic or otherwise, is just a tool. It is for those who want to pursue religion to accept the responsibility of using it wisely.

 

[Dimi95]

The topic was Constantine, not Diocletian.

Yes i understand , but i wanted to make clear why the empire was not formally divided as the reasons were already known by the acts of the previous Emperor(not co-emperor) in the previous Roman policy.
What came out of that formally divisioned empire was actual division in every sense of the word.This is why the effect of it is separate state.
You can choose any example of current time.It's just politics.

Constantine embraced Christianity and his worldview changed.But that did not change Roman politics , as divisions were already noticed.What came after is just consequence of all that.
He was unaware of the the main political issues left by his predecessors.

 

[paarsurrey]

Although, Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics.


Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here isthe Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 24:23-26

" Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics "

And Paul/Saul was that.

Regards

 

[Dimi95]

Really? All the historians I've read agree that Constantine's primary motivation was the well being of the empire, and a large portion of that was the unity of the empire.

What is it that YOU think motivated Constantine?

I agree with you.
But his reason for unity did not stand since he probably did not understood the need for splliting authority by his predecessors.'Division' was established based on internal strategical issues.

What Constantine did was wrong political move at that moment(and only political).That is why the Roman Empire split on two at the end of the Forth Century.That explains also what happend next in the Western part - Civil War.
We know that he embraced Christianity and that made huge impact on the situation.So he did not understood the neccessity to maintain two strategical side's of the Empire.Since Christianity was still young then , he probably did not understood it at such level as Christians do now.

His motive is clear , i agree , but i don't belive that it is political in any way.