Nicaea Council of 325 A.D.

What Was It All About? - How Did It Change Christianity?

Read what the Catholic Church Says About Itself
Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus, peace be upon him, was even born. It was a pagan church established by the Roman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by having them all participate at least to some extent, along with other Roman citizens in some kind of common worship practices and beliefs.


The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A council was convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a leader in the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now wanted to unite the Christian sects in the empire under his existing church; the Universal Church of Rome. Many changes to the religion of Christianity were about to take place at that council, including:

*
Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias (description of the formulation is mentioned below)
*
Changing Verses of Bible
*
Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
*
Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (belief in the Unity of God) as heresy
*
Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
*
Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
*
Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast of Ishtar")
*
Church of Roman "officially" became the "Universal Church of the Holy Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic' means 'universal'

The Roman Catholic Church took on a new face.

What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It is their explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea Council.

"Arian belief in One God - meant Jesus was not God or a part of God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not accept this.

Easter needed to be added as well.


[Begin Quote]

Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council - 325 A.D. (Christian Era)

The Nicene Council is considered by all as the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned by the Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The major product of this council was the Creed, the "Nicene Creed"; but it also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Heresy" was the term now being used to describe what many fomer priests and bishops had been teaching.

"God is One, without partners" seems to be the theme throughout the Old Testament. But now suddenly when the pagan Romans are about to make Christianity the offical church of the Holy Empire, the need to rethink the concept of God arises.

A God-Man and Man-God seem to fit right in with the "former pagan" concept of their 'gods on earth.'

Could this explain the source for "Trinity?"

"Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

Even the phrase, "And these two are one" (First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, verse 7) is fabricated and based on the verse prior to it.
[see: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952 and History of Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)




Occasion for the Council
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the way from Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of the Church. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for the bishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. But this would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might be good for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in the controversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.

Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of Nicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had been informed by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching of Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the bishops in council voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmed the traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated their decisions.

The Council Called
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent military matters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy and schism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a general council and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to what great extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine put the imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place to meet.

The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolic number representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them from the East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or their predecessors had been killed by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced as they paraded into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords and shining armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession. There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote (at this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power and influence, formerly unleashed against them.

Constantine himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening address. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actually presided over by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years before. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simple priests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at the time does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such a prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was because the pope has some position of authority or leadership over the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat of the civil government (but it had just been moved from there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many succeeding councils.

The Nicene Creed
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:

Most held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was no Scriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. They lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, but there was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning. Of all bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antioch the year before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position was not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", but maybe it should be known as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Here it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already a part of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops, well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hard pressed themselves to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Son to the Father. But because they had humility and good will they learned from the discussions of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later recalled).

Date of Easter
Among other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman controversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observe Sunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did most bishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what the council fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observed variously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained in the decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a point which is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the date of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, and Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and was eventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined pattern in the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that the Resurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.

Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of the bishops present (a list which varies from language to language).

The rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from other sources, including Arabic writings. In thus citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources than the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just after the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who were not present at the Council,
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it is surely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."

Alexandrian Patriarchate
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction down there due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order to the Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something which was developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers of Christianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to "lord it over" less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as a byproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria was second only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antioch being in the third place but does not define its territory.

They remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and it took a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course there was no Constantinople yet. We speak nowadays of the "Patriarchates" of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea, but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use this term at all. It does use the term "Metropolitan", but mostly it just refers to the "Bishop of Alexandria", or the "Bishop of Rome" etc. (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really apply to the question of East-West relations or the church-state problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had attended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted) brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he calls himself a "fellow bishop", showing how closely he associated himself with the work of the Church.

Views: 64

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've been absent for a while because I've been doing some study in God's Word as I do and busy with my business. I came back to post and ask why do we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. I guess my post was going to be "Have We Forsaken The Sabbath Day?" but I see you have asked why do we keep Sunday holy and that is good enough for me and no need to post my post but simply and hopefully get responses to your post. This is and has been a burning question for me and though I feel I have been shown the answer through study in God's Word I love to hear what others think and feel. I know as with other issues concerning God's Word this will be and is touchy for some but that's what God's Word is about and that is TRUTH! So I thank you for this post and understand we can agree to disagree and agree to agree and that is still alright.

I certainly agree with what you say (except for the Trinity) in your post especially pertaining to Sunday worship. Though I feel we as children of God can worship Him and study in His Word any day of the week the question is how did Sunday become "The Day of Holys" sort of speak. We know that originally that day declared by God was/is Saturday and how He viewed His Holy Day in Gen 2: 2-3 and Is 58: 13-14. I too believe that Catholocism (Babylonian Mysteries) by way of satan changed this Holy of Holy days to Sunday instead of Saturday as the great deceiver he is. Do I think that God doesn't view Saturday now as He did in Gen 2, God forbid. My question is, though we know (those that truly know that Jesus Christ, The Word (John 1:1-18)) Jesus questioned by the hypocritical Pharisees in Mark 2:24 because Jesus and His disciples plucked corn on the Sabbath in verse 23 answered them in verses 25 through 28. Jesus said the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also fo the sabbath. What is meant by this? Now before we get into it I also understand that some don't have the view of Jesus as God and some don't believe in the New Testament and some hold on to the Old Testament. That's between them and God, not me. I simply seek God's truth and not man's. I believe that Jesus always was and always will be and some don't. I believe that The Word was manifest in the flesh (Jesus Christ) and taught himself to us on the earth and willingly suffered and died on the cross and cleansed us (washed our sins) with His blood and died and went to Abraham's Bossom and preached to those that didn't know him for three days and then conquered death for us and then ascended back to heaven from whence He came and sits on the right hand of God and intercedes for us and some don't. That too is between them and God. The question is "Is the Sabbath no longer as it was because of Jesus?" and should we be worshipping on Saturday instead of Sunday? I know that Constantine and the Babylonians did Sun worship to the Sun god and that day was Sunday. I know that Catholocism worshipped in the Babylonian Mysteries and that is what Constantine knew and how he use to persecute the Jews/Christians until he say a cross in the clouds one day and then declared not to persecute Christians/Jews any longer. This lead to pagan worship mixed with Christianity and the Christians/Jews were ok with that since they weren't persecuted any longer. I truly believe that Roman Catholic worship stems from Babylonian Mysteries and that came from satan as ALL RELIGION. Paul calls religion, superstition and I agree, religion is man made and not God made. God said in the Old Testament His people would be known by an new name and in Antioch they were first called Christians. This is another subject so I'll wait until another time.

So what do we do about Sunday worship? Do we instead start worshiping on Saturday and close the churches on Sundays instead of Saturdays? I don't know you tell me. I know also a church doesn' have to be a building we hold as reverence because Jesus said in Matt 18:15-17 the church is a body of people and not a building. Again he said in verse 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. This too can be another topic about "What is a Church?"

About the Trinity, we as Christians know that the word Trinity is not stated but it is implied and if you rightly divide the Word of God you will get the word Trinity. If you so chose as the Jehovah Witnesses to take away the deity of God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit, that to is between you and God. If Jesus was just a man or another prophet to you that is between you and God. I choose not to judge anyone. I just choose to have God's truths in my mind and heart. I know in Gen 1:26 when He said Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, I don't think He was saying us meaning Angels. And again in Is 6:8 and Eph 4:24 and in Gen 11:7. You tell me Who God was referring to! I know again in Matt 28:19-20 when He said Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, He was implying a Trinity. You tell me! Don't get me wrong I don't try to convince anyone because His Word does this and I don't try to defend His Word because God doesn't need any man to defend Him!
Well I've probably said more than enough and there are those that get on my case because I'm just a layman that loves the Lord and believe in His Word and didn't go to school to learn about Him. I went to His Word to learn about Him. May God Bless You!
The Sabbath is in the law and what should we say then that is okay to pick and choose what we want to keep? So it will be okay for me too kill? Jesus was dead 3 days and 3 night and the dead know not what the living is doing. So how can you get 3 days and 3 nights from good Friday to Sunday? The sabbath was made for us to understand how to worship him but the sabbath is a sign to the future and the real rest day of the Lord. But if you don't keep the test sabbath how will you make it to the real rest day. Now it was saying to people that we are captive in a strange land and if our captives make us work on the sabbath it will be okay but understand if we don't have to work we should not. Do you believe that an angel is god? Because you ask me about the trinity. The trinity are all from the father and they are on one accord. That is all. But their are only 2 Gods in the God family. Jesus is the only God we have ever known and will ever know in this flesh form. You said a lot and I am trying to hit are the points I remember. We where made after the likeness of God. Now see all other living things where made after their kind. So in saying that Creation is not finish with man. The Sabbath is forever and the is it. Friday night to Saturday Night is a sign between Jesus and his people. If you keep Sunday which is a man made day from religion. Who's day are you really keeping? Because the Devil said he wanted to be like the Most High and He has done it in a way. Again the Sabbath is God seal and Sunday is the devils mark of his power. Who side are you on? The Lords or the Devil?
Did you read what I said my Brother. I agree that Sunday is not God's day and that satan created this in his way as the great deceiver using his religion Catholocism. I asked how do we change this back to this day or what was Jesus saying in the New Testament. I still disagree that there are only 2 because to leave out the Holy Spirit is wrong. All three are God and I will take that to my grave. I never said an angel is God and never have and never will believe that. That's what Jehovah Witnesses believe when they say that Jesus is the Michael the arch Angel. That's absurd! Again I say in Gen 1:26 God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. You tell me what He meant! I hope you're not in an argumentive mood or posted this to argue because you won't get this from me. Read my post again and slowly please. Thank you.
Who do you think the holy spirit is I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT JESUS. Jesus was not never an angel. Show me where it say in the bible that they are 3 Gods? But I can show you two. The Jehovah witnesses is a false doctrine not of the Most Him. Yes likeness but not after his kind. Do you understand that everything else was made after its own kind? I do not argue the bible because you can not argue the truth. It is what it is period. I told you but you did not hear me. Do you know who you are? Do you know why we where put into slavery around the world? The weekly sabbath and High and Holy Sabbaths are just for the ones who believe. Many are called but few are chosen. You have to believe what you read or it is in vain.
I gave you Scripture to read where in the New Testament and maybe you don't believe in the New Testament, where they were told to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three are one. And so you say everything YOU say is true and I should hear you. I listen to God's Word and believe what He says. I ask you, do you understand why Jesus came to earth? Do you know what line we come from as Africans or African Americans. Please don't say Shem! I certainly know that JW teach false doctrine as all that claim a religion because then it becomes Superstition as the Jews religion from the Old Testament. I'm simply a follower and believer of Christ..period. Yes I know who I am but I'm sure you're gonna tell who I am. God Bless.
Hi!

Moreh Yehoshua Ben Yahweh is back and he said:

"Yahshua the Messiah is Not Almighty Yahweh"

This is a false doctrine! I say a false doctrine!

Jesus-Christ is the Almighty God! AMEN!

I have come to the conclusion that it is high time we opened a new discussion about the Godhead of Jesus-Christ!

We must probe the holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to see who is Jesus!

Do you want me to open a new discussion about this Topic?

Yahweh of the Old Testament is Jesus in the new Testament. Amen!

All the Bible tells you so!

Blessings,

Brother Germain

www.tagworld.com/srobouay
www.myspace.com/wawesan

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service