He was. What do you see is the significance there?
The Council of Nicaea is not hidden away in some Vatican archive. All of its arguments and resolutions are easily available. There were only two points of contention. One was whether Arius or his opponents were correct regarding the nature of the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The other was in regard to people who had abandoned the church during the Diocletian persecution, with some people holding that they could never be re-admitted to the church as apostates and others holding that while apostasy was a sin, it could be forgiven.
The Council was not a general free-for-all that addressed every sect with a difference of opinion from some perceived majority. It was a two-issue meeting. Constantine called for it to be held because Arianism was severely dividing the church and he did not want a resumption of the riots that had accompanied previous battles over perceived heresies. All the other divisions had already been fought, with one side or the other coming out on top. Nicaea was simply not a “bring everyone together and eliminate all the competition” event. There were many divisions before it, (I have named the major ones), and there were many divisions after it. (There were at least three major “heresy” struggles just within the next hundred years after Nicaea.)
It is also true that the winners had the terrible practice of destroying the works of whoever lost any of those battles. However, they kept their own published arguments for posterity (so that they could point to those arguments if the losing arguments popped up again in the future). So, while we may have a twisted account of the separate ideas that vied for supremacy, we definitely have a record that they existed along with times and places and people who were involved.
The notion that the church (meaning the winners of any given dispute) made all the other opinions disappear is a popular one among some people who have not adequately read history, but they are not factually accurate.
That is my memory, as well. Whenever it happened, Eusebius of Nicomedia was the priest who performed the baptism.
Wait–they aren’t? I thought that the trinity was kind of one of the defining elements of Christianity.
It might have been, for a while. However, there have always been separate groups who have professed a relationship to Jesus who have not accepted trinitarian beliefs. Discussions regarding the divinity of Jesus have gone on from the earliest days. And if one cannot agree with whether Jesus is God, it is hard to establish a Trinity.
Now, at that point, some number of Christians will declare, (usually pointing to the Nicene Creed), that those other people are not really Christians. At that point, the discussion breaks down between lumpers and splitters or between exclusive Christians or inclusive Christians. It is easy to get any number of people to stand up and declare that their position is the correct one. However, there is no objective answer outside the frame of reference of a lumper or splitter, so the matter cannot be resolved.
(Even those who are totally outside Christianity–pagans, atheists, Muslims, Jews, others I am missing–can only hand down their decisions by accepting or rejecting the arguments on which the various inclusive or exclusive Christians rely, so it always comes back to one’s personal initial choice of criteria.)
And then there is the Holy Ghost, who seems like an afterthought to give the Persons of God a numerological balance. There are no bumper stickers asking “What would the Holy Spirit do?”
Not to mention that the sign Constantine used was the Chi Ro, not the cross. At least, that’s how I remember it.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
And then there is the Holy Ghost, who seems like an afterthought to give the Persons of God a numerological balance. There are no bumper stickers asking “What would the Holy Spirit do?”
[/QUOTE]
Actually, one of the traditional roles of the Holy Spirit is to provide guidance.
Prior to bumpers and bumper stickers, hymns were one of the ways for popular expression of religious thought, and one of the oldest surviving hymns is to the Holy Spirit, seeking guidance: “Come, Holy Ghost, Our Souls Inspire,” originally named Veni Creator Spiritus, dated to a plainsong of the 9th century.
It is traditionally sung by the Cardinals as they enter the Sistine Chapel to begin a papal conclave.
It is also traditionally sung during the Coronation of the British monarch.
Having read through the responses to this question it is interesting to note the depth to which the truth has been buried. Not one of you appear to have read an original document, such as the diary of Jerome available in National Libraries where you would see his statements on how he put the NT together and altered parts of the OT to fit what he did.
You are all busy trying to make me look like I don’t know what I am talking about but you might be surprised. Knowing how you are likely to spin more ridicule and misinformation my way caused me to have considerable thought before responding. However, I feel it is right to do so although feeling that this will lead to more attacks.
To begin with I have full memory of my reincarnation. I was a man in my last life and with that experience can assure you there is no heaven or hell, no devil, angels or saints and that your concept of the Divine is totally governed by religious spin and camouflage. There is none so blind as those who cannot see or deaf than those who cannot hear.
If you think reincarnation is not right then look up Dr. Ian Stephenson and check out his 40 years of research into it. It might help the scales to drop from some of your eyes. It is also mentioned several times in the OT. There is a lot in OT prophecies you would do well to examine but get yourselves a King James bible which has not been altered and contaminated by religious clones.
It was the Spirit that led me to Constantine through a vision of him as 666. It is borne out in the prophecies, if you care to look. The bricks of the first Vatican contained his initials CC and as for the bits of the first cross, as you call it, perhaps you can explain how it was possible to find them or anything else in Jerusalem some 300 years after the supposed event and after Titus had raised the city to the ground so that not even the foundation stones of the wall could be found?
Some people have links to the Spirit, who is not a man but a mighty creative force. Religious leaders do not want you to know that because they have created something they can manipulate and use for their benefit in the Trinity and their so-called Savior. Heaven and hell are weapons used by them to get you in and keep you there. Constantine knew that and he created a religion that has been extremely violent, unforgiving and discriminatory.
Maybe you can explain how a man, who is so remote that no one even knows his name, can be a god? How is a virgin birth possible when the genes of both parents are required for conception and spirit has no genes? In ancient times anyone who wanted to be seen as an authority claimed a virgin birth, even Pythagoras. Where are heaven and hell and why would Christ die to save the world when the world is always in conflict and is coming to an end?
I feel that’s enough for now and hopefully you will give some thought to what is being said here. It is not meant to be anything other than a reasonable debate about why some people behave as they do and why belief systems have become so powerful. Maybe give some thought as well to the authorities you use for your debate and the agenda that they were serving when they wrote their works.
Like if others did not take a look already and reported before on how inadequate Stephenson was.
Miss by more than 200 years, the most likely emperor that Revelation was referring to was Nero:
Good grief. Not yet another “You don’t know the truth!”/“The truth is buried!”/“You’re blind to the truth!” post.
This is simply woo-woo land, friend.
It would be interesting to see the title of this book to which authority you appeal. Jerome wrote copious letters, many of them personal, so I could see him discussing his works in those. However, I have never seen any indication that he wrote a diary or a journal and he certainly did not write an autobiography.
Now, if you are quoting someone with an agenda, you may be unaware that Jerome translated pretty much the entire bible into Latin. To the best of his abilities, he used the original Greek (New Testament) and Hebrew (Hebrew scriptures) although there may have been a couple of books that he translated from the Septuagint or failed to translate.
If you find comments by Jerome regarding how he prepared the scriptures, that Latin translation is almost certainly what he was describing.
Even if he did claim to have “compiled” the New Testament, (whatever he meant by that statement), we could ignore such a claim. As I noted, we already have evidence from multiple sources from earlier years that the present the New Testament in its current form existed before he was born.
meh
The Authorized Version was a good attempt for the time. However for the New Testament it relied on the textus receptus that has been demonstrated to contain errors. Similarly, the sources of the Hebrew scriptures are not as clean as one would wish. Claims that later translations are more corrupt are nothing more than wishful thinking from small groups of conservative Christians of the early 20th century.
This is excellent advice that you should ponder when you rely on sources that provide you with historical errors.
I’ve read the thread also, twice. I’m at a loss to understand your point. That the cross is venerated, respected and taken as a symbol of power by Christians is obvious - and I’m an atheist - but worshiped, no. If you think otherwise, you don’t know what the word means.
All beliefs Even mine,and yours are just that Beliefs or Faith. Each person sees and believes what they are taught or their life experiences contribute to their Beliefs. One Faith is proven then it becomes fact!
Now that you’ve said this, I’m going to have [del]second[/del] [del]third[/del] [del]fourth[/del] no thoughts about your sources.
This is gonna end well.
And… lunch flies out of my nose. Thanks. 
Ummm…okay.
So why does it seem to be such a sticking point for you? I was raised Catholic, but always understood that it was symbolic - I had the mass (sans weekly sermon) memorized, and figured it was better for me to go see the world than perform recitations. I knew what the Cross was and what it meant. It’s not something to be “worshiped,” which would be idolatry, but a reminder of Jesus’ suffering, the suffering we undergo in our lives, and his ultimate faith in salvation (notwithstanding the “eloi” statements in Matthew and Mark, which… y’know… Jesus was human, and being tortured; cut the guy some slack unless you’ve been crucified, yourself).
Catholics don’t worship the Cross. Period. It’s a symbol. Think of it as a tattoo. As previously mentioned, it’s like the Star of David. Or any other symbol that provides a sense of commonality to a group.
I’ve got an American flag, a Freemason’s flag, and a great big NY Giants logo in my place, right alongside other symbols that are important to me. I don’t call any of them God. They’re reminders and provide visitors the understanding of things that I care about - they’re conversation starters, in that regard.
At the expense of rambling (which I am) the First Commandment involves worshiping no false idols (that whole “I am the Lord thy God… no false idols,” etc. part). So… no. Cross worship, or worship of any idol, is not part of the faith. And the snake-handlers (I’m certainly not one - snakes scare the heck out of me) aren’t worshiping snakes - they’re demonstrating faith that the symbolic representation of Satan can’t hurt them if they have faith. And people who do fire-walks are doing similar. And parachutists (although that’s more a faith in physics).
If you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs, just leave it alone. I guess, in my opinion, St. Anselm summed it up best by saying that “God is that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived”; an idea, that some of us feel that we feel. If you don’t, well, then… don’t.
As a final thought (as I ramble), as a previously self-described agnostic who has thought about things much more since then, I think that the atheistic/agnostic thing is often grown out of a sense of rebellion (we all have it in us) and uncertainty. Religion is, no doubt, in place to establish behavioral norms for harmony in society and unity in conflicts. But the degree of consistency across religions, and common morals across cultures, speaks to something bigger. I’ve found atheism (no offense to anyone) to be BS - you can’t have faith in nothing (IMHO); agnosticism, I’m sympathetic with. This is what Kierkegaard was talking about with the “leap of faith” - basically saying “screw it - I’ll buy into it and hope I’m right” (kind of like getting married, eh?).
I think you’ve got a well-informed group of folks on this thread. People are touchy about their faith, whether they be atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. Tread heavily enough to fight ignorance, lightly enough not to alienate.
This is gonna end well.
[/QUOTE]
And then repeat over and over again, until the OP finally loses all desire.
Regards,
Shodan
