Council of Nicea

[Acriku]

Edric, so what do you think happened at the Council of Nicea, since you seem to be an expert enough to claim it's invalidity? And the corresponding proof. Why do you ask me where he got his proof? Am I him? No, so find out yourself by asking him, because I have no way of knowing.

[Edric O]

I only asked you if Richard Sisson gave any proof of his claims in the book where you took that quote from, Acriku... I never asked YOU for the proof.

As for the Council of Nicea, it was indeed an important turning point for Christianity, because it was the first official gathering of Christian leaders in the Roman Empire. You see, Christianity had been a forbidden religion until 313 AD, so they never got a chance to get all together. This council was when they set up a united Church.

[Acriku]

The council was to settle disputes made for centuries by christians, which led to christians killing other christians over these differences. COnstantine set it up to stop the murdering, and had voting to settle it.

[Edric O]

Again, Acriku, you are wrong. Christians never killed each other before the 4th century. It's not like they were in any position to either - the Roman legionnaires were doing the job quite nicely already.

They only began having violent disputes after some Christian leaders gained political power. As always, power corrupts...

[Acriku]

The christians were killing each other up to 325, when the council took place. This was under Constantine's power, and to my knowledge he converted before that, giving christians the huge power chair. But I don't see how legionnaries can stop christians from killing each other?

But, I will stop as this is definitely going off on a tangent, so back to Earth's questions.

[Edric O]

My point was that the Roman Army (the legionnaires I was talking about) had the job of killing Christians, and they did it quite well. When you're already being hunted, killing each other is not exactly the main thing on your mind, is it?

And again, your claims are not supported by proof...

But it's true that we're going off-topic. Getting back to the original subject... Well, I already posted my answers to Earthnuker's questions. :)

[Acriku]

Holy moly, cool whoever did this :)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea.

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations.

The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church.

From a catholic encyclopedia.

When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

From http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

[Edric O]

Hey, we have a whole new topic! Nice. :)

And yes, Acriku, everything you just quoted is correct. As I have said before, there was no unified Church before the Council of Nicea. A lot of people (such as Arius) brought up new and strange ideas, and it was necessary for all the Christian scholars to get together and discuss them.

[Acriku]

So you agree that they voted on which books to accept, and some other stuff?

[TMA_1]

if you actually study this stuff first hand acriku, which you admittingly dont, You would find that they always did pray and ask the Lord for guidence. We believe that the holy spirit can indwell us and give us divine wisdom. You cannot argue on that because we are on totally different levels. You will grow up someday hopefully and understand that your attacks are downright immature.lol

[Acriku]

Oh great, now I feel what empr must feel like when TMA suddenly interrupts my(sort of) thread just to insult me and disrespect me. I feel your pains emprworm.

Hey TMA, why don't you keep your Acriku-bashing to one thread, such as the othersideofcoin-atheism thread? Centralized bashing is controlled bashing. And just what does prayer have to do with the Council of Nicea and voting?

By the way, I have studied into it. I wouldn't be posting here if I didn't.

[TMA_1]

lol and your using the same tactics as him too. wonderful ;)

[Edric O]

No, Acriku, they didn't vote on which books to accept for the simple reason that there were no other records of the life of Christ and the lives of the Apostles other than the ones that now compose the New Testament.

The New Testament is a collection of all available records. That is why there are four Gospels in it, for example. And notice that although the Gospels were written by different people at different times, they agree on all major points.

[TMA_1]

also if you dont mind me adding edric, there were many other books that mentioned the life of christ, usually gnostic in nature. Such as The life of isa and others. When you read them and then see waht the early church fathers said about them, you can tell they are completely heretical.

[Edric O]

The problem with those books is that they were written a long, long time after the facts took place. Over a full century after the Gospels were written.

So it's not so much the fact that they were "heretical" as the fact that they were pure speculation.

[TMA_1]

correction noted, very accurate on that edric.