The council of Nicaea 325

I would like to find out just how much people both who are and are not Christians know about the formation of this religion.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Jesus was in fact a man who lived and preached, whatever else may or may not be true about his deity.

From wikipedia:

The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicea in Bithynia (in present-day Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical[1] conference of bishops of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover (Pascha in Greek; Easter in modern English), the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[2] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[2] With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.



So, some three centuries after his death, this council was convened by the Roman emperor to unify the Church. Please bear in mind that there was no such thing as separation of church and state- the reiligion WAS the law of the land, and has been in most civilisations throughout history.

The two main schools of thought at the time were the heresies of Paul and Arius. Paul claimed that Jesus was the som of God himself, and Aruis said he was a gifted prophet and teacher, but a man.

Also understand, the Jewish religion had been fractured by the events of Jesus' preaching, and this left Rome with a great opportunity to gain power and momentum by utilising the faith of the people. Turns out if was a pretty good move, as that authority lasts even to today.

For this discussion, I would sincerely like to hear what insights based on facts people would like to offer on this topic. While I appreciate that many people have faith, and that is surely their right, I would prefer to hear some thoughts based on facts rather than feelings.

More pertinent reading:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

Jesus himself would have considered it blasphemous to say that he was God incarnate, he never said this himself and to any Jew of that day it would have been an abomination to say so. However, belief is based on faith and what is important I think isn't who or what Jesus actually was but the faith that formed around him.

The arian position had been the orthodox one a few generations earlier. The earliest followers didn't pray to Jesus, that evolved over time, from teacher, to equivalent of saint, that is he could intercede on one's behalf, to son of god, to god. Then his immaculate conception, to his mothers immaculate comception, to his mother's assumption, to his mother's cat's immaculate conception.

Constantine I thought was not himself present. He was not baptised until 337, a month before his death, at that time a catachumen wasn't supposed to go beyond the narthex of a church. His chaplain was an arian.

Constantine was not one of the better emperors, the famous battle of the milvian bridge was against his brother in law. His mother was a prostitute, he was illegitimate, and he was not intended to succeed Constantius Chlorus(who was very capeable) as western emperor, so was a usurper. He killed his father in law, his brother in law, his wife, his sister in law, his oldest son, and many others. The credit christian historians give him for the revival of the empire is really due to Diocletian. After defeating Maxentius and Licinius and becoming sole emperor, he was very inactive.

I guess I always assumed he would have been present, since he reportedly called the convention, but that is interesting.

I also didn't know he murdered his whole family, but thanks for the hours of reading that are sure to follow!

You guys are way too smart for me to even comment on this thread... WOW... did that come straight out of Kali's head? Holy smokes!!!!

I agree MZ that this is one of the defining moments in Western history. I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, but I will come back with more thoughts on orthodoxy and heresy. For me it is fascinating how one thing becomes orthodox and then so many accept and something else becomes heresy and is so quickly despised and forgotten. I also hope that the discussion can remain historic and anthropological rather than about faith. Fine lines for some.

One thing that does come to mind is that the difficulties stem from the fact that Jesus did not lay out a set of dogmas. Love thy neighbour and love God has never been enough for some.

HIS was *NOT* an Immaculate Conception -- HIS was a virgin birth. These two concepts are totally different. Mary's conception was immaculate, not Christ's.

Religions and religious texts have served as a cultural definition for civilisations throughout history, so the Bible is not alone there. In many ways, it is beneficial for a group of people to set down in writing "this is what we believe, this is who we are". We did this with our Consititution, but as I said earlier, governments didn't used to be separate from their religions.

The historical Jesus presents a problem for research though, because throughout history, anything written about him is coloured with opinions about faith, and the "faithful" are often nearly completely unaware of the development of the very beliefs they hold.

We'll never know what the historical Jesus said about himself, because no writing is directly attributed to him, and the writings about him were long in surfacing. As oral traditions, it would have been miraculous indeed if much historical accuracy at all survived, and that was okay for their purposes at the time. This was not a story about history, it was about a people's views about their god and their salvation. Mithos vs. logos, as Danny would say.

The best anyone can really do is to look at the society of that time, and draw what could be considered the most logical conclusions based on the available evidence. In this quest, I have an almost unquenchable thirst. I started this thread to learn, so I'll appreciate any and all considered opinions but I'll appreciate sources even more.

Have a look at this MZ.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me the style is consistent with the other two early gospels of mark and Mathew. John is later and in a different style altogether.

The early Gospels are a matter of a generation after th events and can be taken to be failry accurate as oral tradition was very strong. The Thomas gospel is in it's original form and very interesting.

I was thinking something very similar!

Constantine was present, along with 2,048 ecclesiastics, I didn't check that before I posted.

I would recommend Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', it is very readable, it would not otherwise have stayed in print for 220 or so years. His attitude toward religion was very enlightenment.

Another worthwhile book is Robert L. Wilken, 'The Christians as the Romans Saw Them'.

The nicene creed, the credo of the Sacra Ecclesiastica Catholicos Romanorum, with the addition of one word, 'filioqae', is the same now as was agreed on then.

Had to learn it by rote and recite it with the rest of the latin mass, daily in parochial gradeschool. It was much more sententious when it was a complete mystery.

It has always been my understanding that at this same Council, the present canon for the Bible was completed. There were several books that were not accepted. I don't know the names of all of them. Most were gnostic.

My father, a learned theologian, said that Revelation was almost not accepted at this Council.

If anyone knows sources about the canon of the Bible both Old and New Testaments please post.

Freddie, great to see you guy!

From what I understand, it wasn't so much that individual books of the Bible were voted on, although Danny also tells me that Revelation was almost not included (and that he personally wishes it wasn't). I think it was mainly versions of the Bible were being judged as true or false, in a sense. I remember reading that somewhere around 300 versions of the Bible were presented, and all but the Paulian versions were burned. I wish I could remember where I read it, I'd post a link. I've often wondered what was in all those burned versions, no doubt some of it was lost right then and there.

LPD, thanks so much for that link. I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas but never read any of it. I'll read it tonight, and please clue me in on any others you find interesting. This is exactly what I was hoping for, you guys are the best. I always hope that what I lack in knowledge I make up for in eagerness as a student.

I thought I detected a parochial education. While every one of my cousins went to Catholic schools, my mother was the rebel- we were Unitarian. I understand better now why I feel the sense of familiarity in your posts though, and I appreciate very much the book recommendations. This is a fairly new revival of interest for me, as lifetimes go. While I studied eastern religions in my youth, it is a study I let go for almost two decades raising a child. I dabbled here and there, but about four years ago, I decided to just audit a course on religion and mysticism to get the ball rolling again. Shortly thereafter, I joined this site, so it was a timing thing as much as anything.

I'm not sure what I feel on God and the whole religious proposition, but I find the study is fascinating, and I'll reserve judgement pending more information. I love it when people don't tell me what to think, but what to read- that is indeed a gift.

This is an awesome thread. Thanks for starting it, MZ.

Princess,
Actually, Jesus makes many claims to divinity in the New Testament.