So mac, I hope you got a good nights sleep, because your going to need it. Now, the purpose of the Council of Nicea was to deal with the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God Jesus Christ. This is in most of my post I raise the same question Jesus Christ raised to His diciples at Matthew 16:13-17 which is specifically stated at vs13, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" At vs16 Peter rightly answsers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And who gave Peter this answer? Vs17, "And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
So tell me mac, what Historians revealed to you that the Council of Nicea met using your words, "Historians Believe he choose the triune because it was familiar based on the Horus/Osirus/Isis egyptian god that many members of the empire already worshiped
And made the monotheistic (and majority) sunworshippers more comfortable." Who are these "Historians," can you please reference them?
The main theological issue had always been about Christ nor did the Council of Nicea invent the deity of Jesus Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea AFFIRMED the apostles teaching of who Christ is-the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In truth, the Apostles are affirming what the Bible already taught. Then when someone like Arius brought up the idea that Jesus Christ was a created being (like the JW's do today) a creed was formed refuting the claim of Arius.
This is also why I keep saying the Bible makes it clear that there are three and only three persons who are identified as God in all the ways that the Bible identifies God: by His name, title, unique attributes (or nature) and His unique actions and yet there is only ONE GOD. For example, Jesus Christ is identified as God by Thomas at John 20:28. The Holy Spirit is identifed as God at Acts 5:4 and God the Father is identified as God all through the Bible.
Why do you think they crucified Jesus Christ for blasphemy mac? What was His blasphemy? Read the transcript of the trial at Matthew 26:59-66. And btw, you did get one thing right when you said to me that Jesus Christ was "literally" the Son of God for that He is. John 3:16. And can you tell me why Jesus Christ referred to Himself on a number of occasions as "the Son of Man" and as "the Son of God?" What do these Jewish Idioms mean mac?
I got a chuckle out of this statement, " based on the Horus/Osirus/Isis egyptian god that many members of the empire already worshiped
And made the monotheistic (and majority) sunworshippers more comfortable." Sun worshippers huh? You better believe that one of these days it's going to get "hot" alright real hot! Lastly, I did take note that your associated with the "Hebrew Roots" movement. Are you associated with the particular group that denies the Trinity? Just asking? Lastly, most of what I posted is from me and from "Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns." And "Heresies by Harold O.J. Brown."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Hello Bluto.
I will start where you end to add salt to the pudding.
You said:
"most of what I posted is from me and from "Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns." And "Heresies by Harold O.J. Brown"
I do not know why you got your socks twisted over what I wrote. It is basic history and Cairns at least does not dispute a bit of it by my copy. Your Harold o.j. Brown may as I have not read it. I did read his "death before life" with which I had few problems .
Mainly that sometimes systematic theology can honor its original name of dogmatic theology by out of context verse.
But again having not read the 'Heresies' book I will not speak to its veracity.
As far as the bits by you. You have admitted not to have schooling in this. This does not preclude knowledge. Yet it does cast things in a certain light.
Lets dive into it then. You say:
"So mac, I hope you got a good nights sleep, because your going to need it."
Thank you. At my age any sleep is good sleep. Good of you to ask.
You continue."Now, the purpose of the Council of Nicea was to deal with the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God Jesus Christ. "
Actually... This was only part of it. There were several stated purposes. And this was only one. The main stated objective was to bring together several different church bodies under a single Canon. The churches at that time ranged from what would be considered flat out pagan today to what we would consider Hebrew Roots today. And different gradients in between. This would not do if Constantine was to unite the empire behind this Faith. It was completely fractionated. And was already starting from behind as all of a sudden everyone was required by law to be one of these hated Jew like Saints that they had been burning at the stake and blaming all their ills upon not so very long before.
Constantine needed to bring the bishops onto the same page to pull it off. It was not going so well as every group was perfectly happy being different and, much like today, thought everyone else's denominations were in error.
Another giant issue was Holidays. Sabbath day of the week. Etc.
It was not going well. No one could agree. And Arius was actually gaining support in his argument..and remember there were actually three sides to the debate although the wikipedia set only talk about the two. The actual "trinity" debate was:
Arian/Arius who taught Messiah was of a different substance from YHWH —*heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius. Group who were favored of Constantine taught they were of the same substance —homoousios
Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea taught they were of a similar substance —*homoiousios
Eusebius backed down after conference with Constantine and leant his support to the orthodox group view against the middle eastern and african churches who arius represented. In other words Constantine got what he wanted. Many of the bishops present wrote "constantine choose Athanasius." or some variant therein.
Constantine had an idea of how he wanted it to turn out before he got there. (Remember. He worshipped Mithra as his primary god until he died. And was still putting "sol invictus mithra" on the reverse of the coins he issued until he died. That is not a very Christian thing to do is it?) Christianity was a political thing for him. Although the Catholic Encyclopedia says he converted fully near his death. Who knows.
About four years prior to chairing the Council,*Constantine*had been initiated into the priesthood of the religious*order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded*the Sun as the one and only Supreme God*(the other was*Mithraism which he was also involved in). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
Constantine was politically motivated at Nicea. Not religiously. That is why he made sure to be there himself. As a safety.measure.
Anyway these groups weren't playing well. Many of the Bishops who were educated took offense at the sub standard set of recent promotees Constantine had on offer to sell his new Amalgamation leading Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, to say,
"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
Our friend Contantine needed to move things along called over a certain bishop he had preselected, who then challenged the argument of another bishop who rejected Sunday Sabbath and kneeling in worship by kicking him to death. This lead to nearly every remaning discussion item beingbpassed swiftly and nearly unanimously in Constantines favor. (Imagine that) Including the trinity. although a couple members of the african bishops still dissented being unafraid to die for their beliefs. Later church historians said Constantine did not wish them martyred. Is it any wonder we read things like "This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr*Richard Watson*(1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to Constantine's minions as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr*Watson*concluded that "the Orthodox clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.)."
Or as Origen himself writes:"...Constantine[chose]the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables of Horus and Osirus ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
The trinity decision didn't last long as few bishops had bought into it really.
"During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see*five times,*once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.”
Athanasius was eventually the only bishop in the whole world who believed in the trinity. Which is where 'Athanasius against the world' came from. And there it sat until nicea needed to be revalidated for other reasons.
You continue:This is in most of my post I raise the same question Jesus Christ raised to His diciples at Matthew 16:13-17 which is specifically stated at vs13, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" At vs16 Peter rightly answsers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And who gave Peter this answer? Vs17, "And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."*"
Again i do not deny the deity of messiah. I deny the importance of choosing trinity or individual deity. It is not a salvation issue and changes nothing one way or the other.
You go on:"So tell me mac, what Historians revealed to you that the Council of Nicea met using your words, "Historians Believe he choose the triune because it was familiar based on the Horus/Osirus/Isis egyptian god that many members of the empire already worshiped
And made the monotheistic (and majority) sunworshippers more comfortable." Who are these "Historians," can you please reference them?*
Certainly. Origen. Jerome. Some above. The RCChurches own history books and encyclopedias.
Or just Start here:
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
This is 20 books in 2 volumes that contain council of nicea attendees recollections on it. Primary source as you can get.
Erasabus "the life of Constantine"
If you need more i can get it for you. This stuff is not hidden. At least not by the catholic church that actually did these things. Protestants who inherited this stuff are sometimes less forthcoming.
And next you pen:
"The main theological issue had always been about Christ nor did the Council of Nicea invent the deity of Jesus Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea AFFIRMED the apostles teaching of who Christ is-the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In truth, the Apostles are affirming what the Bible already taught. Then when someone like Arius brought up the idea that Jesus Christ was a created being (like the JW's do today) a creed was formed refuting the claim of Arius.*"
I already spoke to this
Then"This is also why I keep saying the Bible makes it clear that there are three and only three persons who are identified as God in all the ways that the Bible identifies God: by His name, title, unique attributes (or nature) and His unique actions and yet there is only ONE GOD. For example, Jesus Christ is identified as God by Thomas at John 20:28. The Holy Spirit is identifed as God at Acts 5:4 and God the Father is identified as God all through the Biblmuch0
I hear what you are trying to say. But there is just as much evidence for individual deity. And do you not think YHWH would be smart enough to provide incontrovertible evidentiary scripture one way or the other if it mattered to him that we understood this point. There are more important issues than the trinity being proved or disproved. No one cared until Constantine tried to create a universal faith with the elements of every faith.
You continue:
"Why do you think they crucified Jesus Christ for blasphemy mac? What was His blasphemy? Read the transcript of the trial at Matthew 26:59-66. "
It truly is a hoot how both sides in the trinity\individual deity camps use these same verses as proof text. because they are non definitive.
You go on,
"And btw, you did get one thing right when you said to me that Jesus Christ was "literally" the Son of God for that He is. John 3:16. "
Thank you for noticing.
You go on.
"And can you tell me why Jesus Christ referred to Himself on a number of occasions as "the Son of Man" and as "the Son of God?" What do these Jewish Idioms mean mac?
I got a chuckle out of this statement, " based on the Horus/Osirus/Isis egyptian god that many members of the empire already worshiped
And made the monotheistic (and majority) sunworshippers more comfortable." Sun worshippers huh? You better believe that one of these days it's going to get "hot" alright real hot!."
I like to picture you chuckling as you wrote this. Maybe catching your own reflection and winking. Or a tooth sparkle.
You continue:" Lastly, I did take note that your associated with the "Hebrew Roots" movement. Are you associated with the particular group that denies the Trinity? Just asking? "
The particular fellowship I am a part of does not care about either proving or disproving the trinity. We just do not find it scripturally important to come down on a side. As long as we hold Yahshuas Deity sacred there are more important things to study. Believing trinity or individual deity makes absolutely no difference to our walk. Believing His deity does. Just another argument that does not change anything. No one even cared for 400 years. Then they cared for a short time and didn't care again. It is like people coming to blows over wether a cup is aquamarine or turquoise...it is a blue cup. Move on.
If i did not provide enough sources let me know. It is hard to foot note in a.reply box.on my phone and i am travelling and have no.access to a compter.
Blessings and peace be with you.in tbe name of.our.Messiah Yahshua.
