# Was Jesus's divinity determined by vote at the Council of Nicaea? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345 "2005-01-24T01:45:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/21 "2005-01-26T06:23:15Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > How would anyone know that? Have you ever seen Q? I have! Many times! On _ST:TNG!_🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/22 "2005-01-26T14:27:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I have! Many times! On _ST:TNG!_🙂 Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/23 "2005-01-26T14:33:16Z")
The Gospels report that Jesus (when challenged by Thomas) replies that “does a ghost have a body”-or words to that effect. The Apostle’s Creed (adopted via the Council of Nicea), says that Jesus and the Father are of one substance…does this imply that they are (in fact) material beings? Or is God totally a spiritual being, without a physical body. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/24 "2005-01-26T16:47:58Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > How would anyone know that? Have you ever seen Q? > > Q is a supposition, not a document. We have no copies of Q, no copies of _portions_ of Q, no direct references to Q - in short, no hard evidence that there is or ever was a document called Q. Q is merely a theoretical document used to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke, but missing in Mark. Sorry, I meant to say that IF Q was an actual document, THEN it is evidence of a fairly “low” christology. > [@](#): > > To claim Q as evidence of any insight as to the nature of Jesus is simply bad scholarship. Well, no. ANY scholarship has to be based on SOME assumptions. For instance, any attempt to discover the “historical Jesus” must assume that there WAS such a person. We can argue the evidence for and against that assumption, but you can’t PROVE that Jesus existed. Similarly, scholarship that takes Q as an assumption isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just relying on one additional assumption. > [@](#): > > That Jesus was divine in some way was most certainly pretty much universally accepted. This is simply false for the earlier time period. The Ebionites, as I mentioned already, are a clear counterexample. > [@](#): > > The Council at Nicea wasn’t to establish whether he **was** divine, but **how** divine he was and in what way. Yes, that’s true, but it only applies to the churches that were involved with Nicea. The bishops at the conference by no means represented ALL of christendom. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/25 "2005-01-27T01:29:09Z")
it was my understanding that god is not bound by time, bodily limits, or physics. when the angel told mary she would bear a son, god took on human form to live on earth. other than that, god could be where ever, what ever, when ever. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/26 "2005-01-27T05:34:27Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The Apostle’s Creed (adopted via the Council of Nicea) No. The Council of Nicaea adopted the [Nicene Creed](http://www.carm.org/creeds/nicene.htm). The [Apostle’s Creed](http://www.carm.org/creeds/apostles.htm) is both older and younger than the Nicene Creed, with early variants _cited_ (but not reproduced) as early as the 2d century, but the ideas which we typically identify with it being noted around the fifth century, and the actual form in which we now recognize it being established in the eighth century. > [@ralph124c](#): > > The Gospels report that Jesus (when challenged by Thomas) replies that “does a ghost have a body”-or words to that effect. John 20: > [@](#): > > 24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” > But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” > > 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” > > 28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” > > 29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Not quite as you described. . > [@Alan Smithee](#): > > (though Paul was quite explicit that it was a spiritual body, not a physical one). I doubt that this is anywhere near as explicit as you have put forth. (I do not deny the possibility of such an _interpretation_ of Paul, but such _is_ an interpretation, not an explicit statement.) ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/27 "2005-01-27T05:58:24Z")
> [@](#): > > I doubt that this is anywhere near as explicit as you have put forth. (I do not deny the possibility of such an interpretation of Paul, but such is an interpretation, not an explicit statement.) 1 Corinthians 15:12-23 pretty clearly implies that the resurection of Jesus is a special subset of the resurection of the dead. “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised” (v. 13). Indeed, Christ is the “the first fruits of those who have died” and will be raised (v.20). Verses 35-57 then go on to explore what this resurection of the dead is like. “With what kind of body do they come?” (35). The answer: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. . . . Thus it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living being”; **the last Adam [i.e., Christ] became a life giving spirit**. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust [i.e., Adam], we will also bear the image of the man of heaven [i.e., Christ]" (vv. 45, 47, 49). Granted, Paul didn’t say “Jesus was raised with a spiritual body, not a physical one,” but I think it is pretty explicit nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/28 "2005-01-27T14:25:39Z")
> [@FriendRob](#): > > Sorry, I meant to say that IF Q was an actual document, THEN it is evidence of a fairly “low” christology. Again, how do you know? As far as I know, the best supposition is that Q is merely a sayings document - a sort of “The Wit and Wisdome of Jesus.” A collection of quotes wouldn’t be any evidence either way. > [@](#): > > Well, no. ANY scholarship has to be based on SOME assumptions. For instance, any attempt to discover the “historical Jesus” must assume that there WAS such a person. We can argue the evidence for and against that assumption, but you can’t PROVE that Jesus existed. Similarly, scholarship that takes Q as an assumption isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just relying on one additional assumption. The difference, of course, is that we have lots of people saying, “This is what Jesus said and this is what he taught.” It’s pretty easy to go from the assumption that Jesus existed to what this historical Jesus taught and what his feelings were on a variety of subjects. We don’t know the same thing about Q. We can assume that Q existed and that it acted as a common source for Matthew and Luke. But we can’t know what form Q took, and we certainly can’t assume that Q provides evidence either way about Jesus’ divinity. To say that it would, would be to provide assumptions based on assumptions. > [@](#): > > This is simply false for the earlier time period. The Ebionites, as I mentioned already, are a clear counterexample. Yes, but we’re not talking about the earlier time period,we’re talking about the time period roundabout the Council of Nicea. By this time, the Ebionites were distinctly in the fringe when it came to Christianity and can’t really be used in evidence of the near universal acceptance of Jesus-as-Divine at that time. > [@](#): > > Yes, that’s true, but it only applies to the churches that were involved with Nicea. The bishops at the conference by no means represented ALL of christendom. No, but they did represent the vast majority. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/29 "2005-01-27T15:25:37Z")
> [@FriendRob](#): > > Sorry, I meant to say that IF Q was an actual document, THEN it is evidence of a fairly “low” christology. > > Well, no. ANY scholarship has to be based on SOME assumptions. For instance, any attempt to discover the “historical Jesus” must assume that there WAS such a person. We can argue the evidence for and against that assumption, but you can’t PROVE that Jesus existed. Similarly, scholarship that takes Q as an assumption isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just relying on one additional assumption. Good point, and one worth thinking through. Q is a reasonable assumption, given the facts of what material we have – but it **is** an assumption. Although every time someone trots out Q in one of these threads, I have this inane voice in the back of my head going “Bar Zebedee. **James** Bar Zebedee. When you’re moved by the Holy Spirit, your soul is shaken, not stirred!” 😃 > [@](#): > > This is simply false for the earlier time period. The Ebionites, as I mentioned already, are a clear counterexample. > > Yes, that’s true, but it only applies to the churches that were involved with Nicea. The bishops at the conference by no means represented ALL of christendom. Um, yes and no. The Ebionites appear to have been very much a fringe group after 100 AD or so. And the point to the Council of Nicaea is that those invited were supposed to be the leaders of the overwhelming majority of Christians. Certainly, either of us can trot out a small denomination that believes almost anything theological that someone cares to advance as a proposition. But the fact we can do so does not change the principles at least theoretically adhered to by the **vast majority** of Christians. As I see it, bottom line for Nicaea is that orthodox Christianity, comprising 98%+ of Christians, held that Jesus was in some way divine, and the council was called to arrive at a consensus on how, to prevent internecine strife between Christians which disturbed the public order. Constantine was not so much interested in getting some specific definition he favored approved, as he was in getting **a** consensus definition, agreed to by the bishops, approved so that Christians would not be fighting Christians in the public streets, with accompanying disruption of civic life. And hence he tried to get the entire Christian community to come together. That there were some beyond his authority who refused to come, and some who were not episcopally governed, was true – but they were not in any way major or influential groups. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345/30 "2005-01-27T15:59:37Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Again, how do you know? As far as I know, the best supposition is that Q is merely a sayings document - a sort of “The Wit and Wisdome of Jesus.” A collection of quotes wouldn’t be any evidence either way. Well, it’s partly an argument from silence: what Jesus DOESN’T say about himself. But not entirely. Just to pull one example, more or less at random: > [@](#): > > Every one who admits in public that they know me, the son of man will acknowledge before the angels of God. But the one who disowns me in public, the son of man will disown before the angels of God." > “Whoever makes a speech against the son of man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven.” On the one hand, Jesus is identifying himself as the Son of Man, which indicates a pretty exalted status. OTOH, the second quote clearly places a distinction between the SOM and the Holy Spirit. BTW [here’s Q, as reconstructed by Burton Mack.](http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html) The difference, of course, is that we have lots of people saying, “This is what Jesus said and this is what he taught.” It’s pretty easy to go from the assumption that Jesus existed to what this historical Jesus taught and what his feelings were on a variety of subjects. We don’t know the same thing about Q. We can assume that Q existed and that it acted as a common source for Matthew and Luke. But we can’t know what form Q took, and we certainly can’t assume that Q provides evidence either way about Jesus’ divinity. To say that it would, would be to provide assumptions based on assumptions. [/quote] But all scholarship is “assumptions based on assumptions”. To even talk about the NT, you need to preface something like, “IF Jesus existed and IF the gospels represent (some of) his words (somewhat) accurately and IF those documents were transmitted reasonably accurately and translated reasonably accurately…” You can’t get away from assumptions. They’re everywhere, often unacknowleged. At least Q scholars acknowlege their assumptions (some of the time…) > [@](#): > > Yes, but we’re not talking about the earlier time period,we’re talking about the time period roundabout the Council of Nicea. **gobear’s** statement that I objected to appeared to be a blanket statement about all early christians, not about some particular group at some particular time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesuss-divinity-determined-by-vote-at-the-council-of-nicaea/286345.md?page=1)