What Really Happened at Nicea?

Christian Research Institute ^ | June 10, 2009 | James R. White

[boatbums]

Summary

The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

The conversation intensified quickly. “You can’t really trust the Bible,” my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, “because you really don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others.” A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something “went wrong,” where some group of unnamed, faceless men “decided” for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.1

I was reminded how often the phrase “the Council of Nicea” is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the “beginning of the Trinity” or the “first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching.” Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

[nobamanomore]

How? Explain your position. Did someone appoint you as one to point out enemies of the faith? I’m thinking not! It’s not our job.

[boatbums]

**- specifically the Deity of Jesus Christ.** Deity is not of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is of Deity,......the only true God. That’s why Jesus Christ and his apostles always used the phrase “the Son of God”. Simply put: where is the Father NOT at?

Jesus is the incarnate God. God in the flesh. The "deity of Jesus Christ" means Jesus IS God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:1-18)

[boatbums]

Hey! Why don’t you start your OWN thread about your pet theories? This thread is about the Council of Nicea and the Christian doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ. What do you believe about THAT? Nicea didn’t have anything to so with the calendar or the Sabbath.

[boatbums]

BTW-It is wrong to suggest that Arius simply was someone who had a different interpretation. He denied the eternal Son contrary to what is in scripture. John calls this the spirit of the antiChrist (1 John 3). If Arius "couldn't figure out for himself what was wrong", one has to question why he was a bishop of the church.

History shows that the church of Rome went along with Arius for many years and persecuted Athanasius, who defended the Biblical truth concerning the Deity of Jesus. From the OP article:

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded “confession” from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.”22 Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.23

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.”24

[boatbums]

I agree.

[boatbums]

Well said! Truth doesn’t change.

[Zuriel]

It’s late. Just got through driving all day.

John 1:1-18 is wonderful! But don’t overlook what the writer says in verse 18: that the Son dwells in the bosom of the Father. That is literal. The verse says that no man has seen God at any time.
In John 4:23,24, Jesus Christ declares that God the Father is a Spirit.

The Father is the Word. This can be proven by what the Son of God said several times, in the book of John, that the words were not his, but his Father’s. Christ declared the Father to be in him, and he in the Father. Literally.

As I said: where is the Father NOT at?

Isaiah 42:1-7 is also worth reading.......nice and slow.

Good night and God bless

[Yosemitest]

A Ph.D. in Theology is about as useful as a 3 dollar boll.
I won't hold that against you.
Jesus destroyed many nations in the Old Testament for not keeping His Father's Commandments.
Hopefully, you'll wake up and won't be part of the "destroyed" .

[boatbums]

The Father is the Word. This can be proven by what the Son of God said several times, in the book of John, that the words were not his, but his Father’s. Christ declared the Father to be in him, and he in the Father. Literally.

The WORD (logos) "was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Jesus, the Son of God, IS God in the flesh. Our God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three, yet ONE God.

Glad you're home safe. Have a nice night and a pleasant Sunday.

[tjd1454]

I’ll take the august Fathers of the Church over the self-appointed “Bible experts” on FR any day.

[Yosemitest]

I thought the subject was "What Really Happened at Nicea" .
And I wasn't going into the subject that deep.
Mostly what happened is the "MOTHER OF HARLOTS" polluted their religion by mixing customs of "other gods" into what Jesus taught..
That's BAD .... VERY BAD !

These are the HOLY days (Sabbaths) I am familiar with other than the weekly Sabbath.

And in case the image isn't clear, those references are:

Leviticus 23

Zechariah 14:16

John 7:8-10

Acts 2:1

Acts 12:3

Acts 20: 6

Acts 20:16

Acts 27:9

I Corinthians 5:8

I Corinthians 16:8

But of , and of the 'day of the new moon' you wrote of, I have never heard of it mentioned as "A Sabbath' .
More important is the HARSH WARNING God sends to us in Ezekiel 33, and that should be studied by all, and looked at in light of today's turmoil.

Now let's look at Ezekiel 46 .

¹ Thus saith the Lord God; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened. ...
⁶  And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish, and six lambs, and a ram: they shall be without blemish.
⁷  And he shall prepare a meat offering, an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and for the lambs according as his hand shall attain unto, and an hin of oil to an ephah.
⁸  And when the prince shall enter, he shall go in by the way of the porch of that gate, and he shall go forth by the way thereof.

Don't confuse a 'solemn feast' with a 'Sabbath'.
Notice that the Bible does not refer to these "new moons" as 'Sabbaths' .
They are two different things.
Notice the difference of instructions for the prince in verse "8" and in verse "9".

⁹  But when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the solemn feasts, he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to worship shall go out by the way of the south gate;
and he that entereth by the way of the south gate shall go forth by the way of the north gate:
he shall not return by the way of the gate whereby he came in, but shall go forth over against it.

Read that again.
There IS a difference.

[HarleyD]

The Father is the Word.

Not according to John:

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

No one has seen the Father. He is Spirit. We have seen the Word, the Christ.

[Zuriel]

The Word that became flesh is full of grace and truth. Those divine attributes came from the Father that dwells in the Son. In the book of John, Jesus Christ repeatedly credits the Father as the source of all things divine, and that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him. The apostles understood that, although not fully until being filled with the Holy Ghost. Who, like Jesus Christ, never used the phrase “God the Son”, but always “the Son of God”. The scriptures also don’t use the man made hybrid term “the God-man” (even many oneness apostolics are guilty of using that poor, abbreviated, description of the Son of God).

Paul told the Athenians, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being....”. Acts 17:28. Which is why I commonly ask trinitarian folks the thought provoking question: where is the Father NOT at?

The scriptures declare that the Son inherited all things from God. So there was either a time that the Son did not exist, or at least, had no divine attributes. But the Father did not have to die or go into retirement for the Son to receive those attributes. The Father is Spirit, and the Son is flesh.

The flesh that God put on was work clothes, complete with a mind and soul: the absolute ultimate in artificial intelligence. And our mind and souls are artificial intelligence, for we did not evolve from simple elements. As Paul, in agreement with certain Greek poets, also said to the Athenians, “For we are also his offspring” (Acts 17:28 again).

If you believe that the flesh was divine, separate and distinct from God the Father, then you are in the same camp as the followers of the RCC, and have to give Mary credit for making more of God (which is not possible).

[nobamanomore]

Me too. Why did you send that reply to me? I;m lost on this one. I’m not in that crowd!

[delchiante]

It is about Nicea, but you mentioned ‘come out of her’ and mentioned His Sabbath. and that Judaism knows His Sabbath.

That’s why I commented. Because it’s the journey He’s led me on.

If Judaism ‘knew’ His Sabbath, they would know the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Feast of Tabernacles begins on His 7th Day Sabbath. (15th Day is His 7th Day Sabbath)

And that ‘Pentecost’/Feast of Weeks is ALSO on His 7th Day Sabbath.

And I haven’t reviewed the chart with the calendar dates you provided, but I know all of those Pentecost dates are incorrect because of what His Word shows.

And I do recall seeing Judaism move appointed times or have postponement rules when His appointed times conflict with rome’s saturday. They moved trumpets and day of atonement (and really tabernacles) a day so it wouldn’t all conflict with their roman saturday sabbath.

quite an observation and given your premise that they know the Sabbath, I saw it just the opposite.

That really isn’t ‘knowing’ His Sabbath. That’s ‘mixing’ customs of other gods..

And given my comment on Pentecost and Feast of Weeks, and considering Christianity notes Pentecost as the birth of the church, those days being wrong are prophetic.

And the answer is found with that one day that judaism and christianity don’t ‘know’- His New Moon Day.

And it seems like you assumed that I was equating the New Moon Day with His Sabbath- I did just the opposite.
I provided a verse in His Word that says His New Moon Day is NOT one of His 6 working days or His 7th Day Sabbath.

Judaism and Christianity do not accept the premise of that verse. They only have 2 days- work or sabbath. the Father has 3 types of days. New Moon Day, 6 work days, 1 Sabbath.

And that pattern the Father teaches, if followed, (which Judaism and Christianity do not), can prove that His solemn Feasts begin on the ‘Sabbath’ Day, and that Judaism doesn’t ‘know’ His Sabbath. They are as blind as Christianity.

Something I am guessing isn’t confirmed with the list of dates you provided. But is confirmed with His calendar.

Judaism doesn’t ‘know’ His Feasts land on His 7th Day Sabbath.
Judaism thinks His Feasts are special sabbaths. different from His weekly Sabbath. because they mix rome and His Word. they mix the world with Truth and get mixed up.

But the Father’s pattern refutes that opinion or belief.
Those Feasts begin on His 7th Day. and are followed by 6 days of work. and had 6 days of work before the Feast days too (except for the Feast of Tabernacles but the life of the Son explains that)

Just as His Word says- 6 days you shall labor but the 7th Day is a Sabbath.

Judaism doesn’t follow that. They are blind to that-

They don’t truly ‘know’ His Sabbath because they don’t ‘know’ His Son.
They don’t know what day The Messiah, The Lamb, died for their sins.
They’re told it was ‘Friday’ when the Lamb died. And then saturday must be the sabbath, then. and sunday is the 1st day, then.

But that is a lie from the enemy. That lie can only be told because rome controls the way the world thinks about time. and the lie can be exposed simply by following His Word.

That is mixing the customs of other gods with His Word.

In a larger sense, that is even changing the 1st importance of the gospel Paul taught (which is Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits) according to scripture with what rome falsely teaches- a false Good Friday, false Holy Saturday, false Easter Sunday (false and untrue according to scripture)

Judaism believes rome and not His Word. they may reject rome’s jesus but they agree with rome and their jesus when it comes to His Sabbath.

amazing to observe but scripture says satan deceives the whole world. not part of it.

Judaism doesn’t know the Day after Passover is His 7th Day Sabbath.
They think the 7th Day Sabbath is ‘saturday’- not because of His Word but because rome
tells them it is. and rome controls time in these end times so, when in rome.

And so does the rest of the world- including all the daughters..

It’s like another jesus with another 1st importance of the gospel has been created simply by using a calendar. changing times and laws.

And given your premise about the mother of harlots.
That’s BAD.... VERY BAD!

[HarleyD]

Those divine attributes came from the Father that dwells in the Son.

That's heretical. The divine attributes did not come from the Father. They always existed as part of Christ's divine nature.

In the book of John, Jesus Christ repeatedly credits the Father as the source of all things divine

That's heretical. In the book of Luke we find our Lord Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Luk 1:35), was baptized and received power by the Holy Spirit (Luk 3:16), was led by the Holy Spirit (Luk 4:1), rejoiced in the Holy Spirit (Luk 10:21), casted out demons by the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:28), speaks the things of God by the Holy Spirit (Matt 10:20), and does miracles by the Holy Spirit (Luk 4:18). It isn't a wonder that our Lord stated that blaspheme against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Who, like Jesus Christ, never used the phrase “God the Son”, but always “the Son of God”. The scriptures also don’t use the man made hybrid term “the God-man”

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Although our Lord Jesus did refer to Himself as the "Son of God" (e.g. John 5:25, John 10:36), He preferred to refer to Himself as the "Son of Man". I'm not sure I see a distinction between saying "God the Son" or "Son of God".

The scriptures declare that the Son inherited all things from God. So there was either a time that the Son did not exist, or at least, had no divine attributes.

I'm not sure what scripture you are referring to. John is clear on this matter:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Christ was in the beginning and all things were made by Christ and for Christ. The Word was with the Father (God) and the Word became flesh.

If you believe that the flesh was divine, separate and distinct from God the Father, then you are in the same camp as the followers of the RCC

Christ is NOT separate and distinct from God the Father and I believe our RCC friends would say the same. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is ONE God with the same essence-just with different attributes. There is no good way to explain the Trinity in our limited understanding. I prefer to think of God as a fire in which parts of that fire takes on different forms.

But I'm sure our Catholic friends would be the first to distance themselves from me.

[tjd1454]

My bad, sorry. I thought I was replying to something you posted, but never mind...

[tjd1454]

Yes! We worship Jesus - Lord of Heaven and earth!

[tjd1454]

I’m not sure I understand correctly all that you said, but I support any attempt to honor the Lord Jesus Christ.

[tjd1454]

I agree. Thank you for posting.