Posted on 05/18/2011 6:29:12 AM PDT by Colofornian
Do you have the intelligence to define what Arius taught?
It is also indisputable historic record that the non-Christian Emperor Constantine dictated that the “Homoousios” language was to be included in the Nicene Creed.
Apparently you have no grasp of history either teppe. This word (“Homoousios”) was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son"
It is nowhere suggested, however, that he (Constantine) was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome. Document your claim teppe.
History is indisputable on this point. Arianism represented a new development in Christian thought. Most early heresies in the church suggested that Christ was either only God, or only man, or a pure man who was made a pure God. Arianism suggested Jesus was something inbetween God and man. Thus, in rejecting Arianism Nicea did not redirect the course of the historical trajectories of the development of Christianity.
The corruption entered via joseph smith and his delusions of godhood.
I didn’t say that Constantine invented the term “Homoousios”. I merely said that Constantine as a Soverien capable of banishing and condemning men to death personally appealed to the body of Bishops for the language to be included.
It is also a fact, that any dissenting Bishops were forced into Exile..... FYI that would be defined today as “Coercion”.
So let’s see ... Constantine appealed the Bishops to include the term “Homoousios” and thereafter exiled any Bishops who wouldn’t sign his dictated document.
Sorry about the the “Ping thing” I have another life so I don’t play around on this FREEPER thing enough to figure out all the ins-outs and ettequette.
Constantine, a Non-Christian, the Most Powerful Man in the World at the time, clearly used his influence and threat of banishment to obtain his desired objective.
In 325 AD Christianity was Imperially Coerced .... and forever changed .... until a spring day in 1820, when all was made right again.
Also ... why would you quote Eusibius? Eusibius was essentially the leader of the Arius opinion.
One thing I do know! You read Eusibiuses description of the competing Nicene opinion holders and he is dignified understanding, patient and understanding man. Clearly a projection of a Christ centered individual.
...Contrast that with Athenasius descriptions of the opposing viewpoint ... and he’s a raving, frothing, hateful and vengeful individual, a complete contrast to a Christ-centered individual.
Basically Athenasius’s personality comes through that he indeed is the same thug that he was so often accused of being.
...essentially, he comes across simlarly to alot of you rabid anti-mormon types!
Again, fail on your part teppe. You said that constantine dictated the usage of the word. History shows that the bishops at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. Not the actions of an imperial dictate teppe.
Coercion
Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics...." ( Philip Schaff’, History of the Christian Church) Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.
So let’s see ... Constantine appealed the Bishops to include the term “Homoousios” and thereafter exiled any Bishops who wouldn’t sign his dictated document.
Fail again teppe - there is nothing to indicated that constantine commanded the use of the word, and as shown by his later life - didn't tie much to it.
.... until a spring day in 1820, when all was made right again.
or was that 1822 or 1823 - all those versions and their conflicts. . . .
As you later note - he wrote extensively about the conference.
..Contrast that with Athenasius descriptions of the opposing viewpoint ... and he’s a raving, frothing, hateful and vengeful individual, a complete contrast to a Christ-centered individual.
LOL, classical morg nonsense, I guess you would associate me with the latter as well (remembering that Athenasius was 'coerced' by constantine for not being an arian.)>
Basically Athenasius’s personality comes through that he indeed is the same thug that he was so often accused of being.
Source? (Probably those frothing at the mouth apologists at FAIR and FARMS).
Oh, sure. 52,000 Lds missionaries can force MILLIONS of homeowners to answer their harassing doorbell-ringing & knocks 6 days a week, but Mormons won't reciprocate the responses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.