Can someone please explain The Council of Nicaea to me?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Matt37777

Guest
#1
I was in this stupid conspiracy theory forum. They were talking about The Council of Nicaea. council at Carthage in 397 A.D. One of these. I'm not even sure which. They apparently decided which books would be put together to form the bible.

What I'm trying to understand is how would they know what books were the inspired word of God and which are not? This kinda bothered my faith a bit. I'm trying to understand is what proof we have that this was an authentic meeting. I'm trying not to focus on conspiracy theories anymore as I've come to realize that I think they're unhealthy. But I'm trying to gain more understanding about how the bible was created, and how Christianity was formed in a way that helps us to know we are believing the right thing?

Im not sure that makes sense or not. What I'm trying to say is this. If we knew God came down from heaven and gave us a book and said "this is my word, the bible, follow it" that would be easy. But when you hear that it was a group of men that got together to decide what books to use, that makes me a bit nervous. Don't get me wrong, I believe the bible 100% But I'm just trying to get more understanding of how this meeting in which they decided on the bible's contents would be trustworthy?

Can someone explain that to me? Thanks. :confused:
 
Mar 21, 2011
1,515
16
0
#3
I was in this stupid conspiracy theory forum. They were talking about The Council of Nicaea. council at Carthage in 397 A.D. One of these. I'm not even sure which. They apparently decided which books would be put together to form the bible.

What I'm trying to understand is how would they know what books were the inspired word of God and which are not? This kinda bothered my faith a bit. I'm trying to understand is what proof we have that this was an authentic meeting. I'm trying not to focus on conspiracy theories anymore as I've come to realize that I think they're unhealthy. But I'm trying to gain more understanding about how the bible was created, and how Christianity was formed in a way that helps us to know we are believing the right thing?

Im not sure that makes sense or not. What I'm trying to say is this. If we knew God came down from heaven and gave us a book and said "this is my word, the bible, follow it" that would be easy. But when you hear that it was a group of men that got together to decide what books to use, that makes me a bit nervous. Don't get me wrong, I believe the bible 100% But I'm just trying to get more understanding of how this meeting in which they decided on the bible's contents would be trustworthy?

Can someone explain that to me? Thanks. :confused:
There is also the issue of what martin Luther did with the books.

I would suggest learning about the History of Orthodox Christianity
A History of the Orthodox Church: Outline

History of Orthodox Christianity - Part 1: Beginnings - YouTube
 
I

Indubitably

Guest
#4
The two councils of Nicaea were ecumenical councils of the Christian church held in 325 and 787. The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council held by the church, is best known for its formulation of the Nicene Creed, the earliest dogmatic statement of Christian orthodoxy. The council was convened in 325 by the Roman emperor Constantine I in an attempt to settle the controversy raised by Arianism over the nature of the Trinity. Nearly all those who attended came from the eastern Mediterranean region.

It was the decision of the council, formalized in the Nicene Creed, that God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial and coeternal and that the Arian belief in a Christ created by and thus inferior to the Father was heretical. Arius himself was excommunicated and banished. The council was also important for its disciplinary decisions concerning the status and jurisdiction of the clergy in the early church and for establishing the date on which Easter is celebrated. cosubstantial=Participation of the same nature; coexistence in the same substance coeternal=Equally or jointly eternal.

The Second Council of Nicaea, the seventh ecumenical council of the Christian church, was convened by the Byzantine empress Irene in 787 to rule on the use of saints' images and icons in religious devotion. At that time a strong movement known as Iconoclasm, which opposed the pictorial representation of saints or of the Trinity, existed in the Greek church. At the prompting of Irene, the council declared that whereas the veneration of images was legitimate and the intercession of saints efficacious, their veneration must be carefully distinguished from the worship due God alone.

The only real evidence regardng the choice books in the Bible comes from ancient manuscripts which show that the early church did the choosing. Those who "canonized" the New Testament did not necessarily think of themselves as doing so. Bottom line, the books which were eventually accepted as part of the "canon" (meaning rule) of the New Testament were those which the early church, by consensus, believed to have apostolic authority. In other words, the books which were accepted were those which the church believed the apostles themselves considered to be inspired by God.

We do know that the Council of Nicaea made no changes to the New Testament.
 
M

Matt37777

Guest
#5
Okay thanks. I think the bottom line is perhaps as human beings we'll never fully know everything. We just got to have faith and trust. My thought is that I can feel something inside and I've seen many signs throughout my life which leads me to believe there most definitely is a God. Just in the back of my mind I wouldn't mind getting some further confirmation in some way that I'm on the right path.
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,083
190
63
#6
We believe to see, not see to believe.

John 20

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
 
M

meecha

Guest
#7
Okay thanks. I think the bottom line is perhaps as human beings we'll never fully know everything. We just got to have faith and trust. My thought is that I can feel something inside and I've seen many signs throughout my life which leads me to believe there most definitely is a God. Just in the back of my mind I wouldn't mind getting some further confirmation in some way that I'm on the right path.

Matt...please be assured that the books that we have in our NT are indeed the ones that the early church regarded as inspired. A lot of skeptic types and atheists want to alarm us with their claptrap about Nicea being a big conspiracy to exclude texts. Think of it like the greatest hits album of your favorite band.....you already know what the greatest hits are so if someone comes along in a few years and claims to have unearthed some new "hits" you will be wanting to let people know that these new "hits" are phoney. Arius was a phoney and there were others around like him who were trying to disturb the Church. That's what Nicea was about....they never chose the canon....they merely affirmed what the Church had already established over 250 years before.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#8
Hi Matt,

They are feeding you a line of bull. The twenty-seven books now included in the New Testament canon were first given notice (as far as we know) in what is called the Muratorian Canon, a document dated A.D. 170. An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by the librarian L. A. Muratori. The text names twenty-two books of the New Testament, including the four Gospels.

The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now-missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John (calling the latter the fourth Gospel) and cites Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation as books that could be read in the church.

As time went on, numerous other Christians commented directly or showed implicitly what books they accepted as authoritative. Irenaeus was privileged to have begun his Christian training under Polycarp, who was a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, Iranaeus had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with first-generation Christians.

Irenaeus quotes from almost all the New Testament on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, "fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge ... having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God." Irenaeus reveals his trust in the four Gospels when he says, "The Word ... gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit." In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, and the book of Revelation.

In the third century, many Christian scholars-such as Hippolytus, Novatian, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Dionysius affirmed a fourfold, fixed Gospel text. These writers also affirmed the canonical status of most of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, even while recording doubts about such books as 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.

In the beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius was the chief proponent of establishing the four Gospels and other recognized books as comprising the New Testament canon. But it was in the middle of the fourth century that the development of the canon came to its culmination with the Festal Letter for Easter (A.D. 367). Here, Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books.

This letter, with its admonition, "Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away" (an allusion to Revelation 22:18-19), provides the earliest extant document that specifies the twenty-seven books without qualification.

At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) decreed that "aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the name of Divine Scriptures." This decree also listed the twenty seven books of the New Testament, as we have them today.

Understand that the collection of various books by the Christian churches for use in worship was an inadvertent way of canonizing them. There is evidence that within thirty years of the apostle Paul's death (A.D. 60s), all the Pauline letters (excluding the Pastoral Epistles) were collected and used in the major churches.

It is true that the authority of some of the smaller letters of Paul (as well as those of Peter and John) were being questioned in some quarters for perhaps another fifty years, but this was due to uncertainty about their authorship only in those particular locales. And this, in fact, demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils or powerful bishops but was rather happening spontaneously, through a natural response of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.

According to early church writers, the criteria of the selection of New Testament books for use in Christian worship revolved around their "apostolicity." In other words, like those books of the Old Testament, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living.

The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, and it took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today.

We know that the Gospels and the major epistles of Paul were "canonized" in the minds of many Christians as early as A.D. 90-100; that is, the four Gospels and Paul's Epistles were deemed to be Scripture worthy to be read in church. In fact, in Peter's second Epistle, he puts Paul's letters in the same category as "Scriptures."

We also know that the church fathers of the second century had a high regard for what is now the canonical New Testament text. Indeed, a study of the writings of the first five outstanding church fathers (all writing before A.D. 150)-namely, Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp-indicates that they used the New Testament writings with the same or nearly the same sacred regard that they attributed to the Old Testament writings. All were considered Scripture.

During the second half of the second century, more apostolic fathers were affirming that the New Testament writings were Scripture. This is especially evident in the writings of Irenaeus, who affirmed a fourfold Gospel text.

I would recommend reading:

1. 'The Many Gospels of Jesus' by Philip W. Comfort PhD



Amazon.com: The Many Gospels of Jesus: Sorting Out the Story of the Life of Jesus (9781414316048): Philip W. Comfort, Jason Driesbach: Books

and if you need a beginning primer on chruch history also as a starting point:

2. 'Church History in Plain Language' by Bruce L Shelly



Church History in Plain Language, 3rd Edition: Bruce L. Shelley: 9780718025533: Amazon.com: Books
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#10
There is also the issue of what martin Luther did with the books.


GOD BLESS MARTIN LUTHER

YOU go up against RCC and translate the Bible for the common people.....then we'll talk.
 
Last edited:
M

Matt37777

Guest
#12


GOD BLESS MARTIN LUTHER

YOU go up against RCC and translate the Bible for the common people.....then we'll talk.

Here I'll try and speak some finnish.....

Terrva terrva mitta kooloo??? ;-p
 
Nov 22, 2012
626
2
0
#13


GOD BLESS MARTIN LUTHER

YOU go up against RCC and translate the Bible for the common people.....then we'll talk.

I do not believe that Martin Luther done something good at reformation of Church.With run from Roman Catholi Church heresy,he couldnt found the TRUTH in reformation because he renewed old heresied which were defeted by the TRUTH which comes from Holy Spirit.If u research u will find who,when and how defeted those heresies at 1st 8centuries of the Church.
ICXC NIKA
 
Mar 21, 2011
1,515
16
0
#14
GOD BLESS MARTIN LUTHER

YOU go up against RCC and translate the Bible for the common people.....then we'll talk.
Yes, yes, you are the only true Christian, you know better than me and a billion others.

Tell God how happy you are that you are so righteous, and not like me the dirty old tax collector.
 
L

Light_in_the_Darkness

Guest
#15
Matt, the council of Nicaea would have looked at a proposed booklet to be added by who wrote it....when it was written and did it have consistancy with all know facts......many of the rejceted book were written much latter....by questionable authors.....and did not fit into the biblical naritive or were inconsistant with well known facts.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#18
Yes, yes, you are the only true Christian, you know better than me and a billion others.
Actually, she would not be the only true Christian.



Tell God how happy you are that you are so righteous, and not like me the dirty old tax collector.
Nah, it has nothing to do with how righteous she is.

In case you didn't know, scripture testifies to the fact that she is not righteous by her own account.
Romans 3:23
23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Any righteousness she could ever have, would have to be directly from the Imputation of Christ's righteousness to her account.

2 Cor. 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#19
why what did he do???
sigh, sorry bro you just landed in what we here call a sectarian war.

however personally I don't worry to much about the Roman catholic church, the eastern Orthodox church (split from the catholic church first) or the many protestant churches (established after Martin Luther nailed his protest to the church door because of the indulgences and corrupt in the Catholic church)

The Bible used the most in almost all Protestant churches is contained in both the Roman catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox bible, the other two just have more books in them.

there are so many "history" books out there it can make your head spin.

Personally I would read the Bible and try to see how it flows all together to tell the story of Jesus Christ and God's redemption plan for humanity.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#20
sigh, sorry bro you just landed in what we here call a sectarian war.
If you don't mind my interjection, the matter of canons is much more than a "sectarian war"... Rather, it has much more to do with the preaching of the Gospel, and of our respect for what God has said.