The council of Nicaea 325

[JustAsking]

Its a Gnostic notion that what man does is worldly and corrupt, and what Jesus or God does is perfect. This form of Gnosticism is pervasive, especially in the American form of "folk Protestantism". One result of it is that we instinctively reject the notion that what looks like a messy political process was actually part of the "inspired" process.

I know this might sound outrageous to some, but it is consistent with the birth, life, and death of Jesus. Jesus' most important act involved him submitting to the nasty and messy and mostly petty politics of a bunch of Roman and Jewish bureaucrats to the point where he allowed himself to be killed because of it. Its only because we have heard the story so many times that we don't see how outrageous that is. And it is our modern gnosticism that prevents us from seeing how consistent this is with all of God's actions on the world in general.

It is the inconstant, unfaithful, and bumbling Peter that Jesus turns to to establish His church. Jesus seems to be aware of the irony of this when he calls Simon "Peter" in referring to the rock on which he will establish his church. The "rock" is basically all mankind with its foibles, politics, and any other deficiencies one can think of. In the light of all of that, what is more outrageous; that Jesus didn't figure on the flawed and political nature of man as stewards of his church or that he expected it all along?

My opinion is that what happened throughout the history of the church is exactly the kind if thing that was inevitable and was completely anticipated by Jesus. It is consistent with the notion that God's influence on the world is mediated through human behavior, however messy that is. Something like Nicea was inevitable at some point. As messy, nasty, and political as it was, it is not an outrageous notion that it was "inspired".

 

[kalipygian]

I've wondered if the 'Simon-Peter-rock', which is a pun in latin and greek, would have been in aramaic, as it is semitic rather than indo-european language, the word would not likely have been a cognate. Makes one wonder if it was not made up by someone writing origonaly in greek.

 

[JustAsking]

I've wondered if the 'Simon-Peter-rock', which is a pun in latin and greek, would have been in aramaic, as it is semitic rather than indo-european language, the word would not likely have been a cognate. Makes one wonder if it was not made up by someone writing origonaly in greek.

The Aramaic word is Cephas, but we don't have any of the Aramaic texts. All we have are translations. IT seems like a small point, but this is part of the Catholic Church's justification for the succession of Popes, since it implies that the church was founded on Peter, who is the first Pope.

Critics of that point of view (and of the apostolic tradition of Popes) claim that Jesus is referring to himself when he says, "Upon this rock I will build my church."

The odd thing about the original Greek manuscripts is that comes to us as "And I also say unto you that you are Peter (petros, a detached stone or bolder that might be easily moved) and upon this rock (petra, a fixed massive rock or ledge), I will build My church...".

Two different words are used. There seems to be some kind of word play going on. It has made for centuries of debate.

 

[titan1968]

Thanks a lot for your explanation-- thanks for connecting the dots. :smile:
Ευχαριστώ / Gratias!

Almost all of the early theologians were in the eastern, greek speaking part of the empire, it was much more civilised, older, urban, and populous. Classical greek has a large and well developed philosophical vocabularly. Their works came to us through latin translation, it had a much smaller vocabularly, most philosophical/theological terms had no latin equivalent, so the greek word was used. There was relatively little origonal writing in latin.

Greek was the language of literature, latin of military command and government. For example, Marcus Aurelius's meditations were written in greek. A roman could not become well educated without understanding greek.

Nikea was a greek city, it was the capitol of the former kingdom of Bithynia, and was the principal imperial residence in the area before it was moved to Byzantium. (Nice in France was founded by greeks and origonally had an identical name, 'city of victory'.)

 

[madame_zora]

Its a Gnostic notion that what man does is worldly and corrupt, and what Jesus or God does is perfect. This form of Gnosticism is pervasive, especially in the American form of "folk Protestantism". One result of it is that we instinctively reject the notion that what looks like a messy political process was actually part of the "inspired" process.

I know this might sound outrageous to some, but it is consistent with the birth, life, and death of Jesus. Jesus' most important act involved him submitting to the nasty and messy and mostly petty politics of a bunch of Roman and Jewish bureaucrats to the point where he allowed himself to be killed because of it. Its only because we have heard the story so many times that we don't see how outrageous that is. And it is our modern gnosticism that prevents us from seeing how consistent this is with all of God's actions on the world in general.

It is the inconstant, unfaithful, and bumbling Peter that Jesus turns to to establish His church. Jesus seems to be aware of the irony of this when he calls Simon "Peter" in referring to the rock on which he will establish his church. The "rock" is basically all mankind with its foibles, politics, and any other deficiencies one can think of. In the light of all of that, what is more outrageous; that Jesus didn't figure on the flawed and political nature of man as stewards of his church or that he expected it all along?

My opinion is that what happened throughout the history of the church is exactly the kind if thing that was inevitable and was completely anticipated by Jesus. It is consistent with the notion that God's influence on the world is mediated through human behavior, however messy that is. Something like Nicea was inevitable at some point. As messy, nasty, and political as it was, it is not an outrageous notion that it was "inspired".

Wow, I knew you were probably sitting on a lump of coal waiting to squeeze out a diamond, and here it is. This is without a doubt the best explaination I have ever read from someone who acknowledges the corruption and irregularities in the "story" and is still a self-described believer. You are an amazing person, and I thank you sincerely for your participation here- not just in this thread but everywhere.

I still have problems with very much of the Bible being factual reality, so for me, it's still problematic that very many of the words attributed to any of the personas were actually said. In fact, I think it's unlikely that many of them were. That's okay, and people living in those times had different expectations of their literature. They weren't going to harass each other to provide sources and peer review, even to the extent that we do here. Everyone knows you could send five people to see someone like Tony Robbins and they would all five come back with a different perspective of what was said there, even though they attended the same day and time. Let that fester for fourty to a hundred years, and any expectation of reality-based reporting becomes an exercise in absurdity.

However, as a moral guide there is a great deal contained therein that tells a tender and beautiful story of the growth of a culture. Look at the OT as compared to the NT, you see a more emotionally mature Jesus trying to lead his people beyond the constraints of who they thought they could be. He said we were ready, and so then we became ready. Not smoothly, not nice, but those people took on a burden to change that would later revolutionise the world.

A good beginning. What we are missing now is some of that entrepreneurial spirit that drove and inspired the people of his time. I really can't believe that someone that insightful wasn't really challenging us all to "take up our cross" and become the righteous heirs to the abundance of life here at our disposal. I think he was saying "What I have done, you can do too- stop making excuses". He spoke to be controversial, why is it that we don't honour and respect that, but instead run hiding to the comfort of the establishment, which is always politically motivated?

 

[Adrian69702006]

I know a little bit about the formation of Christianity in the early centuries but it's not something I've really had the time to study in depth, a fact which I somewhat regret. However I am aware that there were various controversies concerning the divinity of Christ and that the Oecumencical Councils, of which the Council of Nicea was one, were important in shaping the Christianity that we have and sorting the wheat from the chaff. What was important about the Council of Nicea was that it provided the basis of a widely used statement of the Christian Faith which in time was to become the Nicene Creed.

Now used at Mass on Sundays and Solemnities in the RC church and at Holy Commmunion or Eucharist in the Anglican and Free Churches, it was a relative latecomer to the liturgy. It didn't become a regular part of the Mass (eucharistic rite) until about the 11th Century which takes us into the medieval period. It found its way into Anglican and Free Church liturgies through the 1549 Prayer Book of Edward VI, a book which some of us regard as superior to the 1662 Book.

 

[Full_Phil]

---I really can't believe that someone that insightful wasn't really challenging us all to "take up our cross" and become the righteous heirs to the abundance of life here at our disposal. I think he was saying "What I have done, you can do too- stop making excuses". He spoke to be controversial, why is it that we don't honour and respect that, but instead run hiding to the comfort of the establishment, which is always politically motivated?

How many people are leaders, and how may are followers? Jesus as the way-shower sets more of an example than issues a calling. He defines a route to Father/Mother, speaking with the confidence of someone who has truly "gotten it". Combine theoretical Christianity (love thy neighbor) with Buddist thought, and you get both a system of multiples lives leading to Nirvana, and a route to get there. If and when we finally "get it", perhaps we then enter the Kingdom.

 

[JustAsking]

... I still have problems with very much of the Bible being factual reality, so for me, it's still problematic that very many of the words attributed to any of the personas were actually said. In fact, I think it's unlikely that many of them were. That's okay, and people living in those times had different expectations of their literature. They weren't going to harass each other to provide sources and peer review, even to the extent that we do here. Everyone knows you could send five people to see someone like Tony Robbins and they would all five come back with a different perspective of what was said there, even though they attended the same day and time. Let that fester for fourty to a hundred years, and any expectation of reality-based reporting becomes an exercise in absurdity. ...

Yes, you are so right. Although the Gospels are considered "accounts", serious Bible scholars consider them "history in service of sermon". Each of the Gospel writers had a different agenda. They are written by very different people to very different constituencies. Some feel that this discredits the Bible, but others point to the fact that it is evidence against a massive conspiratorial fabrication campaign.


Again, if God's influence on the creation of His church was mediated through "the Body of Christ (meaning the community of believers)", how could you expect anything different happening? People didn't subvert the process. People are the process. Its only us unwitting Gnostics that demand a perfect process devoid of the corrupt influence of people.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Some of this reminds me of the christians, sorry believers in Philip Pullman's The Amber Spyglass, in the realm of the dead. It is a hell hole, but the believers must believe that it is the heaven that they say they were promised. If God made it, it must be right. The premise of course is that God made it, or even that he cares about it.

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, you are so right. Although the Gospels are considered "accounts", serious Bible scholars consider them "history in service of sermon". Each of the Gospel writers had a different agenda. They are written by very different people to very different constituencies. Some feel that this discredits the Bible, but others point to the fact that it is evidence against a massive conspiratorial fabrication campaign.


Again, if God's influence on the creation of His church was mediated through "the Body of Christ (meaning the community of believers)", how could you expect anything different happening? People didn't subvert the process. People are the process. Its only us unwitting Gnostics that demand a perfect process devoid of the corrupt influence of people.

Okay, then how does this make sense in light of other religions? When one only considers Christianity, it is easier to accept jesus as THE Christ, but when one considers the many religions, each with their fervent believers, it becomes necessary to choose which is "right".

If you have found a way around this, I would like to know it.

 

[madame_zora]

How many people are leaders, and how may are followers? Jesus as the way-shower sets more of an example than issues a calling. He defines a route to Father/Mother, speaking with the confidence of someone who has truly "gotten it". Combine theoretical Christianity (love thy neighbor) with Buddist thought, and you get both a system of multiples lives leading to Nirvana, and a route to get there. If and when we finally "get it", perhaps we then enter the Kingdom.

And perhaps "this Kingdom" IS our understanding? If knowldege and the Word are "of God" then perhaps Nirvana or Heaven is the state of having "gotten it".

 

[Adrian69702006]

JustAsking wrote:

"Yes, you are so right. Although the Gospels are considered "accounts", serious Bible scholars consider them "history in service of sermon". Each of the Gospel writers had a different agenda. They are written by very different people to very different constituencies. Some feel that this discredits the Bible, but others point to the fact that it is evidence against a massive conspiratorial fabrication campaign."

I had quite an interesting discussion with a lady friend, who is also a priest, a while back about the reliability of the canonical Gospels. She seemed to think that the canonical Gospels in the New Testament were reliable on the grounds that what the four Evangelists said in their respective Gospels tallied. I tried to point out to her that there had probably been a fair amount of copying from writer to another though. I think it arose from the fact that I'd recently purchased a book on the various other Gospels, fragments of which have survived, which didn't make it into the Bible. They included the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and the Protavengalim of St James which some people here will no doubt have heard of. My friend was highly sceptical about those non-canonical gospels though.

 

[Lordpendragon]

My friend was highly sceptical about those non-canonical gospels though.

This is the whole point of much of the discussion Adrian.

Most Christians base their faith on the accepted Canon. Interestingly, few seem to question it and think they are original and extant works penned by their namesake apostles which we know to be wrong.

When you ask them about works that seem to read right as it were, but were excluded, they say that they were fakes.

When you ask, how they know they are fakes, the say because the Church fathers said so.

Then we get to the interesting bit about Nicea. Why did the CFs say they were fakes? because they were or because of the fact that the pursuit of gnosticism does not lend itself to organised religion?

I think the latter and further that if one reads the jesus story as him being a gnostic guru, he simply takes his place amongst many other great teachers. Only this gnostic leader came from a monotheistic tradition and therefore his followers had to conclude that if he was right about truth and the route to knowledge and understanding, then he must be the messiah, the son of god. For me personally, it is a syllogism.

There can be no further rational or logical thinking once you accept the premise or have faith in God. Thereafter all your conclusions must lead you back to the original premise, otherwise you are a non believer (not a true believer as decreed by orthodoxy) a heretic.

 

[Full_Phil]

And perhaps "this Kingdom" IS our understanding? If knowldege and the Word are "of God" then perhaps Nirvana or Heaven is the state of having "gotten it".

--- and life suddenly works, regardless of all the other shit going on.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I think this discussion seems to have gotten a little over complicated, I'm not cutting and pasting from net articles, I'm remembering it from long ago so it might be a little less than eloquent.

There isn't a single mention of Jesus claiming to be the 'real' Son of God, as opposed to 'A son of God' which any Jew who adhered to the laws would be; as Israel is often likened to the wife of God (Jer 3 2:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (and many other parallels where Israel is likened to the bride and God to the bridegroom)) any Son of Israel could justify calling himself a Son of God on two counts. The only title he repeatedly uses for himself is Son of Man - a title we could all claim - indeed anyone who believes in the Christian God even now could call himself 'Son of god.' We can conjecture and say 'oh when Jesus said he was the Son of God he meant it in some way that claimed a special relationship with God' but that's looking at it from our perspective where we've been told that Jesus was the Son of God and God incarnate. From the thinking current in that time it would have been anathema for a Jew to think of Jesus as divine in any way.

It has been pointed out that Jesus didn't leave any dogma or set of rules to live by, as Jesus himself said in Matthew 5 1.17 & 18 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil.' in the OT there are many laws and this underlines that he agreed with them in totality, this also points to him being in every way a Jew and his thinking being allied with current Jewish thought. He himself would have thought that his being called God was blasphemy, as he would have looked on the idea of him being born from a Virgin birth, miraculous births were common in the OT but they were only miraculous in an entirely human way, e.g a woman past the age of childbearing giving birth, the idea of a virgin birth is entirely pagan in thought, as are so many features of Jesus' life as given in the NT.

As has been pointed out the gospels were written with an agenda, and some of the NT was written to make Jesus more acceptable to the surrounding pagan peoples who were familiar with the concept of heroes -commonly a hero might be the product of a miraculous birth, his real father would be a god or and his human step father royalty, his birth would be attended by portents, his future importance would be recognised as a threat by some ruler and there would be attempts to kill him, he often disappeared for a few years into the wilderness where he underwent some sort of trial. his death would usually be a very unpleasant one and the harrowing of hell is a common theme - there are many primitive heroes who escaped hell.

He does tell his disciples not to let it be known that he is the Christ - the Messiah, the Anointed, which is nothing to do with being A Son of God, or in being God incarnate, Saul, David, all of the Kings of Israel were Messiahs, and in those troubled times when Galilee, Nazareth and the surrounding areas were under Roman occupation the Jewish people as a whole were looking for a Messiah - a military leader who would lead them to freedom, John the Baptist was a contender for messiahship and was reported to have performed miracles. Jesus death came about not because he had pissed off the Jews, his death came about because the Roman authorities saw him as a threat, claiming to be the Messiah carried with it an implication that he would be King of the Jews, and as at that time Augustus was the ruler he would view this as treason - his method of death by crucifixion was one only the Romans of that time would or could impose.

The census could not have taken place for a few reasons - one that at that time Herod was ruler there and he was not under direct Roman jurisdiction although he was a Roman client king, therefore a Roman census would have been impossible, if by some fluke there had been a Roman census the Romans who were keen on keeping records would have recorded it as they recorded the only census which took place in that area, which took place at a time which would not have fitted in with any of the other information in the Bible (but duh offhand I can't remember when it did take place) and a census is for one reason only, now as then, it is for the purposes of collecting information for taxation so to have a Roman census in a land that was not at that time under direct Roman rule was nonsense.

When the Nicaean council took place the Romans were fairly new converts to the idea of One God, I suggest they were still a little too close to their pagan gods to resist the idea of apotheosising Jesus as they had up until recently apotheosised every Emperor. Constantine was ostensibly a Christian, however his cultural background was steeped in Roman paganism and it must have seemed natural to him to make the figure he worshipped more than human.

when we consider the synoptic gospels can't even agree on his birthplace or how he died the miracle is that the NT was ever taken seriously as a document with any sort of historical credulity.

Does it matter? No what matters is that the people who do believe in Christianity try to live their life according to what we have come to believe were Jesus' words but it is interesting to exchange opinions on.

 

[madame_zora]

--- and life suddenly works, regardless of all the other shit going on.

Haha, are you sure you're not DMW??:biggrin1: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, that was one hell of a summation, sent those little chills up my spine. I hope it's not just gas.

 

[Lordpendragon]

I think this discussion seems to have gotten a little over complicated, I'm not cutting and pasting from net articles, I'm remembering it from long ago so it might be a little less than eloquent.

I enjoyed your post very much; however I am going to cut and paste from my surfing through wikipedia articles. TBH I think I could get lost there for a week looking at all the different religions.

This is the modern creed of a religion I had never heard of -

The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements.

And the mantra of Zoroaster from c. 1000 years before Christ, is Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds.

Plus ca change. :smile:

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Many of the Eastern religions are very attractive, the Yin Yang balance they seem to strive for cuts out many of the elements of extremism found in religions derived from the Bible - from Zoroaster's religion which was a dual religion I think founded on the worship of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman (and as I said in my previous post I'm not getting this from the net, it's memory and my study of religions and mythology is some years ago) and can in some ways be said to have influenced the NT where Satan as a direct opposing force to God is mentioned for the first time, to Buddhism which has no real figure of worship but has as its central creed the middle way - do not hurt when holding is enough etc, to the Jains who hold all life sacred, none of them have as their aim the concept that their religion is supreme and should be the one which should be followed. It is Judaism, Christianity, Islam that have as their aims the conversion of others and the idea that anyone not following their religion is inferior.

 

[Lordpendragon]

I'd like to write a thesis on Dualism in Monotheism and the intolerance of alternatives. But we digress and I don't want MZ spanking me - well Ok I do, but hey I'm only human.

 

[kalipygian]

The OT was written down after the Jews had been released from the Babylonian captivity by the Zoroastrian Aechemenid empire, which they were a part of untill Alexander. The Persians used Aramaic as their language of government in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, it became the lingua franca of the near east. The first historical revealed religion, the official religion of the first multinational empire, it lasted almost 200 years. I think it had more influence on religious development than it gets credit for. Curious the Christians would use the Magi, the Zorostrian priestly caste, to validate the birth of their god. (that was the last time they got any credit:smile

I used to put Zoroastrian in the 'religion' space on forms, alienated by the behavior of Christians. Everybody had heard of it, but no one knew anything about it. Actually knew some Persian Zoroastrians in the 70's, and presently know locally some Kurdish Zoroastrians from Haleb (Aleppo) in Syria (they've been there forever).

Was very moved by reading in my teens Mary Renault's 'the Persian Boy', about the period of Alexander from the perspective of his boyfriend Bagoas.