Resurrection

[Thomas]

One addendum regard Trinity. The 325 AD The Ecumenical Nicene Council said nothing regarding the Trinity but they came back in 381 AD to lay rest to that oversight or blunder. Whichever it may have been.

It was neither.

Most people have huge misconceptions about the Councils. They like to see it as the big ole bully church telling people what to believe. A look at the data will soon show that is rather a flawed assumption.

Councils try to establish the truth in the face of contention, to head off the drift into error. Nicea, for example, was called to settle a Christological dispute, which, I might add, did not go away.

The Trinity wasn't discussed, because it wasn't disputed. It was there from the beginning, spoken of by the Fathers in the 2nd century, and is still widely agreed upon today – Catholicism, all the Orthodox Patriarchies, Anglican, Evangelical, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, United Methodists ... are all agreed on the Trinity as One God in three Persons ...

I think I'm right in saying it's some American ideological denominations that don't accept the Trinity.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Hey A Cup Of Tea –

Check out the wiki entry on The Council of Nicea. It actually covers the ground quite fairly, and cover the 'misconceptions' assumed above ... I can detail the evidence if you want, with links to the surviving documents and outcomes.

As ever, to me it boils down to an opinion based on the evidence v an opinion based on ...

Thanks, Thomas...you are the "enemy" of the other side though...I don't know if I should trust you....

EDIT: Oh dear, Thomas, the opposition was right, the council had an agenda all along! It was the Arian question, easter date, Meletian schism and "Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons". Wait...it's not that sort of agenda...

 

[Thomas]

it is what I've remembered....and remembered wrong...thanx.

No probs.

but yeah...hundreds of books, many lost, many discounted right away.... some came up in the new finds...

Nah ... not hundreds. Not even a hundred ... in fact surprisingly few, really.

Three or four Jewish-Christians gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, a handful of early gnostic texts ... then you're well passed the 2nd century halfway mark, with infancy narratives, secret gospels, all manner of stuff dating to the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The point is, if one applies just a fraction of the critical skepticism one applies to the canonical four, then none of these texts has a snowball's hope in hell of being received as authentic or even reliable. But then, the pro-gnostic fan never seems to apply the same rule to his or her own favoured texts ...

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Thomas - You are mistaken. Try Wiki. The 325 AD Nicea Creed did not mention the Trinity. In 381 AD the Church assemble the council in Constantinople and composed the creed that included the Trinity. Check it out.

 

[Thomas]

Thanks, Thomas...you are the "enemy" of the other side though...I don't know if I should trust you....

Whoo-ha-ha-ha! (sfx echoes into the distance)

EDIT: Oh dear, Thomas, the opposition was right, the council had an agenda all along! It was the Arian question, easter date, Meletian schism and "Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons". Wait...it's not that sort of agenda...

Hey ho ... and if Constantine was such an influence, how come everyone ignored him? How come the Arians, who lost the dispute (just two supporters out of near 200 against) appealed to Constantine, if Constantine had decided the Church was going to be non-Arian ... and how come ... but it goes on ...

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Thomas - You are mistaken. Try Wiki. The 325 AD Nicea Creed did not mention the Trinity. In 381 AD the Church assemble the council in Constantinople and composed the creed that included the Trinity. Check it out.

Since posting the above I have been surfing. I do personally stick by the two Councils I mentioned but in actuality one can find fodder to support nearly any position. Particularly when considering denominational differences.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas - You are mistaken. Try Wiki. The 325 AD Nicea Creed did not mention the Trinity. In 381 AD the Church assemble the council in Constantinople and composed the creed that included the Trinity. Check it out.

But it needn't have be mentioned at Nicaea if it was not under dispute at that time. As I understand from the wiki (First Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) there was a dispute concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost, but that does not imply that the trinity was not a concept long before either of the councils.

Hey ho ... and if Constantine was such an influence, how come everyone ignored him? How come the Arians, who lost the dispute (just two supporters out of near 200 against) appealed to Constantine, if Constantine had decided the Church was going to be non-Arian ... and how come ... but it goes on ...

I hope you see I was just making a light hearted observation of the dual nature of 'agenda'.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas - You are mistaken.

Sorry, my fault for not making myself clear.

What I meant by neither was that not mentioning the Trinity at Nicea was neither 'oversight' nor 'blunder'. It just wasn't part of the dispute. No-one had a problem with the Trinity.

 

[Thomas]

... but in actuality one can find fodder to support nearly any position.

Oh no doubt ... but is there any actual evidence?

Hang around IO, or any such forum, and you'll find every now and then someone pops up to claim that Constantine invented Christianity, that the Bible was put together at Nicea, that Church doctrine was invented at Nicea, that anyone who opposed the councils was murdered, that Christmas Day was pinched from the pagans, that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, blah, blah, blah.

No actual evidence for any of it. A lot of material evidence saying the opposite, but hey, as the adage goes, why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?

It's understandable, when the untrue gets repeated so often that it is assumed to be true, because everyone repeats it. The blind leading the blind, and the skeptic all too disposed to buy it.

And when the Christian goes and checks out what facts there are, and weighs up the evidence for and against, and dares to say, 'Hang on, there's no substance to that at all!' it's assumed its just another poor deluded Christian bleating and whingeing ...

 

[Thomas]

I hope you see I was just making a light hearted observation of the dual nature of 'agenda'.

Oh, no probs there!