The Nicene Creed

[cdowis]

A question, johnny.

Why do the translation of the Creed (the one you cited) only say "one" rather than the actual "one substance" contained in the Greek word homoousia.

Some would think that the translators are embarrassed by the term, and trying a whitewash of what was actually said.

Some people would indeed think that. No one around here in this forum, of course.

[rhinomelon]

This discussion will, of course, boil down to how each camp thinks God is capable of acting. LDS will look at the confusion and say that there is no way God was working there, while mainstream Christianity would say that of course God can work through such circumstances. For me, I look at the Bible and see how God worked through councils and even schisms.

There are also some correctives I would like to offer at some point regarding some of the common misconceptions floating around here regarding early Christianity and the apostasy. This will probably come later in the day. Take care, everyone

[cdowis]

>LDS will look at the confusion [of the Council of Nicea]

The confusion has nothing to do with it. It is the lack of authority, the lack of revelation, the lack of prophets that I am looking at.

I am looking at Eph 4:11-14, and I see in the Council of Nicea that the apostles and prophets were replaced by scholars, philosophers and secular leaders (the emporer). I see the emporer banishing those religious leaders who vote against the creed.

I see that the church described by Paul had fallen into apostacy.

That is what I am looking at.

[Joseph Antley]

The Bible contains the Nicene concept that the Son and the Father are "one in being". 1Tim3 reveals that "God was manifest in the flesh, John 1 reveals that "the Word was made flesh" sounds like God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

[rhinomelon]

The confusion has nothing to do with it. It is the lack of authority, the lack of revelation, the lack of prophets that I am looking at.

I am looking at Eph 4:11-14, and I see in the Council of Nicea that the apostles and prophets were replaced by scholars, philosophers and secular leaders (the emporer). I see the emporer banishing those religious leaders who vote against the creed.

I see that the church described by Paul had fallen into apostacy.

That is what I am looking at.

Thank you for further clarifying the LDS perspective on this. Needless to say, I see something different. I'm not saying that I see everything as good, as I think the mingling of church and state under Constantine was the single most detrimental event in Christian history that led to many unforeseen and unfortunate effects. But I definitely see God as capable of bringing His truth out of such circumstances, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

On another aspect of the thread, I see that the good old Apostasy standby of "Greek philosophy corrupting Christian doctrine" is alive and well. Of course one can find aspects of Greek philosophy in Christian doctrine; the faith was born into that culture! But it is also quite obvious that where Greek philosophy entered into and informed Christian theology, it was not adopted wholesale, nor was it used uncritically. And also, it is quite easy to find Platonic concepts scattered throughout LDS doctrine as well, so this argument is always a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

More in a bit. Also, one little known factoid that might be germane to the discussion: Several LDS I've talked to seem to operate under the assumption that Constantine wrote the Nicene Creed, or at least made up the word homoousios that "settled" the debate. Neither is the case; homoousios was actually used first by Origen over a century before the council. Also, Tertullian used its Latin equivalent (unius substantiae) to refer to the oneness of the Father and Son in substance, but two in person. Also very Trinitarian.

Take care, everyone

[Joseph Antley]

On another aspect of the thread, I see that the good old Apostasy standby of "Greek philosophy corrupting Christian doctrine" is alive and well. Of course one can find aspects of Greek philosophy in Christian doctrine; the faith was born into that culture! But it is also quite obvious that where Greek philosophy entered into and informed Christian theology, it was not adopted wholesale, nor was it used uncritically. And also, it is quite easy to find Platonic concepts scattered throughout LDS doctrine as well, so this argument is always a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

This isn't really related to this thread, but could Christianity being influenced by Greek philosophy be used as an analogy to excuse Mormonism's Masonic influence?

[rhinomelon]

This isn't really related to this thread, but could Christianity being influenced by Greek philosophy be used as an analogy to excuse Mormonism's Masonic influence?

I don't believe so, because there are several major differences.

First, mainstream Christianity fully acknowledges the use of Greek categories of thought and discourse as a tool used in fleshing out its theology; the official LDS position (as far as such a thing is possible) regarding its own history and practices tends to ignore or reject Masonic influence, particularly with regard to the temple ceremony.

Second, Greek philosophy and thinking was the language and means of learning at the time of early Christianity, so it was going to be addressed within Christian thought no matter what, either by adopting it completely, rejecting it completely, or something in the middle. It was the elephant in the room of Greco-Roman culture; you couldn't avoid addressing it for long (EDIT: Even Tertullian, who asked the famous question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" went on to use logic and Greek thinking in his many writings against various heresies). On the other hand, the Masonic Order was nowhere near so influential in Joseph's day, so it wouldn't necessarily be addressed or mimicked by Joseph Smith. Smith would have knowingly chosen to integrate Masonic concepts into his theology.

Finally, Christianity's use of Greek philosophical concepts was governed by its Scripture and apostolic tradition/testimony, i.e. the teachings of the church in the past. Joseph Smith was under no such constraints, as in the LDS system latter revelation and development always takes precedent over past revelation. Smith could have adopted the whole Masonic system as a whole without stirring up too much trouble, because the past beliefs and doctrines were subject to his revelations.

EDIT: One additional difference to mention: early Christian writers were usually clear in their writings where they adopted Greek metaphysics and where they rejected it; various writers would draw the line in different places, of course, but one can see early Christianity wrestling with the issues involved. I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith, or any other early LDS figure, for that matter, seriously wrestled with Masonic thinking, or even really brought it up at all. This would suggest (to those who believe Masonic ties are a serious issue) that Masonic emblems, practices, etc., were uncritically adopted and remade into LDS practices and emblems, without acknowledging or thinking through the issues involved.

Hope that helps. More later. Take care, everyone

[cdowis]

>But I definitely see God as capable of bringing His truth out of such circumstances, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

I see the Lord restoring the truth thru a living prophet. He did not try to pour new wine into the old wine bottles of theologians, scholars, and politicians.

[johnny]

Bsix,

Could you provide some evidence of how the the Nicene Council was influenced by the secularized emporor ...

Could you provide some evidence that the biships involved with the creed were not inspired ...

Could you provide scripture to support of how the creed is in error ...

Could you provide scripture to support the idea of "mistaken interpretation" ...

Thanks,

johnny

[johnny]

cdowis,

The Nicene Creed is not speaking of "substance" ... it is speaking of "one in being". See below.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

[johnny]

cdowis,

The Catholic Church has authority. An ecumenical council has authority. The Catholic Church has revelation.

Apostles were replaced by bishops. Prophets were replaced by inspired men of God.

The emperor did not banish religious leaders.

The Catholic Church has not fallen into apostasy. The doctrines and ordinances of the Catholic Church are the same as those in the early Apostolic Church.

[johnny]

Antley,

Which God was born in the flesh ... was it the Father or the Son ... was it Elohim or Jehovha?

No all bishops had to be present at the council. Constantine cared about church problems because he became involved in a raging Church controversy, their was political turbulence and stress.

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

Which God was born in the flesh ... was it the Father or the Son ... was it Elohim or Jehovha?

No all bishops had to be present at the council. Constantine cared about church problems because he became involved in a raging Church controversy, their was political turbulence and stress.

Jehovah was born in the flesh. Elohim is a word like English God -- it could be used to represent either the Father or the Son in the Old Testament. Today, when Latter-day Saints say Elohim, they are generally referring to the Father.

Why weren't all required to be there? Why weren't a majority required to be there? Why wasn't at least a fourth required to be there?

The emperor did not banish religious leaders.

What do you call Arian leaders, such as Eusebius? Wasn't Arius himself banished (I can't really remember)?

Apostles were replaced by bishops. Prophets were replaced by inspired men of God.

Who authorized this replacement? Since we're demanding scriptural support for everyting, is there any scriptural support for this replacement?

[Bsix]

This discussion will, of course, boil down to how each camp thinks God is capable of acting. LDS will look at the confusion and say that there is no way God was working there, while mainstream Christianity would say that of course God can work through such circumstances. For me, I look at the Bible and see how God worked through councils and even schisms.

Six: I am struck by sort of a foundational double-standard in the statement above. Some traditional Christians are perfectly willing to find fault in every...single...fault...imperfection...process-issue...confusion within Mormonism and declare that these things are proof that Mormonism is false. Yet, there seems to be a vast ability to excuse all manner of doubt-casting shortcomings in their religion -- and even see some of those shortcomings as God's workings.

I suspect that if the traditional Christian critics cut Mormonism as much slack as their religion and likewise set aside skepticism...they would have alsmost nothing to object to about Mormonism.

Regards,

Six

[johnny]

Antley,

You say Jehovah was born in the flesh and you say Jesus(Jehovah) is God.

- Why doesn't 1Tim 3:16 say Jesus was manifest in the flesh?

- 1Tim 2:5 says "there is one God", who is this "one God" ... you say the Son is God and you say the Father is God?

1Tim.1

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Tim.2

[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. (see link below)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Eusebius was not a Roman emperor like Constantine, Eusebius was a Bishop. A church council condemned Arius.

The Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20) ... Bishops took the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:28).

Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul, he saw the Apostles and conversed with them. Clement wrote with authority while the Apostle John was still alive. Clement was ordained by Peter. Clement learned the faith from the Apostle Peter. Clement wrote, "And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration."

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

[rameumptom]

Bsix,

Could you provide some evidence of how the the Nicene Council was influenced by the secularized emporor ...

Could you provide some evidence that the biships involved with the creed were not inspired ...

Could you provide scripture to support of how the creed is in error ...

Could you provide scripture to support the idea of "mistaken interpretation" ...

Thanks,

johnny

Could you provide some evidence of how the the Nicene Council was influenced by the secularized emperor ...

The emperor called for the Council. In that one act alone, he influenced it. After the Council was finished, Constantine enforced the decrees made, exiling those that opposed it.

Could you provide some evidence that the bishops involved with the creed were not inspired ...

First off, if the bishops had been "inspired" I would imagine they would have been of greater agreement. After the Nicene Creeds were put in place, a numerous amount of the bishops throughout the Church rejected it, and it took almost another 50 years for it to become firmly established. Had it been inspired, the bishops would have embraced it better. Secondly, earlier teachings would not have been rejected, such as Origen's teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father. This shows us that either the bishops were not inspired, or Origen was not inspired. Yet, for over a century before the Council, Origen was admired and quoted. Eusebius quoted him and stated he was a major leader of the early Church. Obviously, Origen was not apostate, if this is the case. Then why was his teachings so thoroughly rejected at the Council and later?

Prof Bart Ehrman writes that the early Church struggled with the idea of continuing revelation. The Gnostics claimed additional revelation. It pulled Tertullian away from the proto-orthodox Church to a sect that promoted continued revelation. Justin Martyr told Trypho that if revelation ended in Christianity, it would be as dead as Judaism. Yet, according to Ehrman, the Church decided to end the idea of continued revelation, because it was too difficult to put out all the fires being created by those who claimed revelation, or to have additional writings of the prophets and apostles. To establish a canonized book of scripture that could not be changed (even though Ehrman shows that the proto-orthodox had no compunction against changing scripture to support their beliefs) meant no more revelation. This idea followed for over a thousand years, as most Christianity rejected miracles, speaking in tongues, prophesy, and other gifts of the Spirit. Given that this Council was convened by a pagan seeking to strengthen his rule over his empire, we can only conclude that he influenced them in other ways, as well. Constantine would have been steeped in Greek tradition, whose ideas on God as being of one substance separate from all other things, was not originally believed by early Jews or Christians. In Hebrews, Paul taught we are the spirit children of God. He taught that we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Well, if we are joint-heirs, that means we will inherit the exact same thing! And if Christ inherits of the one substance of God, then by that logic we would also have to become a part of the Trinitarian God. Yet, the Trinitarians do not teach any such thing. Instead, they teach we are of a different substance from God, and while we can approach Him, we can never be like Him. This contradicts the scriptures and itself.

Could you provide scripture to support of how the creed is in error ...

John 17 has Jesus praying that the apostles be "one" even as the Father and Son are one. If the Trinitarian idea of one substance is correct, then we must assume that one day we will all be joined into one vast, nebulous spirit named God. But that isn't what the creeds teach, as they insist we are of a different substance than God. Nor do Catholics and Protestants believe that human kind is bound to become one spiritual mass. In his prayer in Gethsemane, Jesus stated, "not my will, but thine, be done." If God and Jesus are of the same substance, then they must have the same will. Will cannot be divided nor separated from the same being.

Could you provide scripture to support the idea of "mistaken interpretation" ...

Can you provide convincing scripture to support the idea that it isn't a mistaken interpretation? You've tossed out scriptures of Christ becoming man in the flesh. This proves nothing. It doesn't establish the Father and Son of being of one substance. It can be read just as easily to mean that they are separate beings. In fact, according to Margaret Barker, the early Jews believed Elohim and Jehovah/Yahweh to be separate beings. Yahweh is the Great Angel of the Presence of God. The early Christians also linked Christ directly with Yahweh, believing him to be the angel of God's presence. They were believed to be separate beings. The idea of one substance came about from Greeks and Jews who hated the idea of polytheism. They spent a few centuries tweaking these ideas until Athanasius put it together in a more palatable form for such individuals. But Arius, Eusebius (who was an Origenist), and hundreds of other bishops rejected Athanasius' Trinitarian creed. Somehow, these bishops at Nice had the power to not only excommunicate Arius, but also exile him. Could they have done this without the emperor's power behind them? I doubt it.

Clearly there are some major problems with Nice. It disagrees with some of the best scholarly work available today from Barker, Ehrman, and others. I won't go into the idea of God having a wife, which goes over like a lead balloon for everyone that isn't a Biblical scholar (like William Dever) or LDS. Because, if God has a wife - then there are obviously more than one God.

[Moksha]

So was Celestial Marriage, the division of Heaven into the three Kingdoms, the need to have a First Presidency composed of a Prophet and Twelve Apostles, A Council of the Seventy, endowment ceremonies,and foreknowledge of the coming of Joseph Smith all known in Jesus time and before the Apostasy?

[rameumptom]

This isn't really related to this thread, but could Christianity being influenced by Greek philosophy be used as an analogy to excuse Mormonism's Masonic influence?

I don't believe so, because there are several major differences.

First, mainstream Christianity fully acknowledges the use of Greek categories of thought and discourse as a tool used in fleshing out its theology; the official LDS position (as far as such a thing is possible) regarding its own history and practices tends to ignore or reject Masonic influence, particularly with regard to the temple ceremony.

Second, Greek philosophy and thinking was the language and means of learning at the time of early Christianity, so it was going to be addressed within Christian thought no matter what, either by adopting it completely, rejecting it completely, or something in the middle. It was the elephant in the room of Greco-Roman culture; you couldn't avoid addressing it for long (EDIT: Even Tertullian, who asked the famous question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" went on to use logic and Greek thinking in his many writings against various heresies). On the other hand, the Masonic Order was nowhere near so influential in Joseph's day, so it wouldn't necessarily be addressed or mimicked by Joseph Smith. Smith would have knowingly chosen to integrate Masonic concepts into his theology.

Finally, Christianity's use of Greek philosophical concepts was governed by its Scripture and apostolic tradition/testimony, i.e. the teachings of the church in the past. Joseph Smith was under no such constraints, as in the LDS system latter revelation and development always takes precedent over past revelation. Smith could have adopted the whole Masonic system as a whole without stirring up too much trouble, because the past beliefs and doctrines were subject to his revelations.

EDIT: One additional difference to mention: early Christian writers were usually clear in their writings where they adopted Greek metaphysics and where they rejected it; various writers would draw the line in different places, of course, but one can see early Christianity wrestling with the issues involved. I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith, or any other early LDS figure, for that matter, seriously wrestled with Masonic thinking, or even really brought it up at all. This would suggest (to those who believe Masonic ties are a serious issue) that Masonic emblems, practices, etc., were uncritically adopted and remade into LDS practices and emblems, without acknowledging or thinking through the issues involved.

Hope that helps. More later. Take care, everyone

The differences here between the Hellenistic use by early Christians, and Joseph Smith integrating portions of the Masonic ceremony into the temple rite are these:

First, the temple rite goes back prior to Joseph's experience with the Masons, as it is shown forth throughout the BoM. Second, while Joseph probably did use portions of it as a stepping stone, he used it as a basis to flesh out an entirely different rite (Masonic rites don't have women involved, no sealings of families, no Adam and Eve, and no direct ties to Christ, etc).

Next, the issue is one of who is inspired of God? By Nice, many of the proto-orthodox had rejected continuing revelation. They struggled with every Gnostic group claiming continuing revelations. Tertullian left the proto-orthodox for the Marcions, because Marcion claimed new revelations. It was easier to establish a non-changing canon that had been tweaked by the proto-orthodox (see Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of the Scriptures for details) to ensure their success. Creeds were necessary to establish beliefs that were not clear in the static scriptures they had. These would eliminate the Gnostic dangers, and establish the proto-orthodox on an unchanging foundation.

Meanwhile, Joseph Smith rejected creeds. He held the view that all things were open to God's revision through revelation. He had no problem going back later to a revelation and updating it with enhanced understanding given via revelation. Using the Masonic rite under the direction of revelation becomes a much different experience than using Hellenism's philosophy and logic to understand God. One is a vertically-directed event (God to man) and the latter is horizontal (human to human). The Hellenist Christians were delimited by their scriptures and logic, and without continued revelation that could enhance or replace any logical ideas they'd had. OTOH, Joseph's logic was based upon continued revelation, not on Masonic rites.

Clearly there is a major difference in the modus operandi here. While creeds continue to restrict most of Christianity, and prevent them from accepting the ideas that Biblical scholars are now discovering (that God is anthropomorphic; and El and Yahweh are separate beings), Joseph's openness to new ideas born through revelation have revealed ancient ideas that are only now coming to light again in the scholarly world.

[Joseph Antley]

You say Jehovah was born in the flesh and you say Jesus(Jehovah) is God.

- Why doesn't 1Tim 3:16 say Jesus was manifest in the flesh?

- 1Tim 2:5 says "there is one God", who is this "one God" ... you say the Son is God and you say the Father is God?

In that context, I would say the one God refers to the Godhead. The Book of Mormon teaches, "Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God" (Alma 11:44). I do not interpret that to mean they are all one Being, or of one substance.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection.  (see link below)

Yeah, but I don't consider those councils to have been of God.

Eusebius was not a Roman emperor like Constantine, Eusebius was a Bishop.  A church council condemned Arius.

Yeah, I'm aware Eusebius was a bishop. Eusebius, along with Arius and his other followers, was exiled by Constantine. That was my point.

The Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20) ... Bishops took the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:28). 

Neither of those scriptures say that the bishops took the place of the apostles. Acts 20:28, the one you cited, says that they will feed the Church, and they were made overseers. To me that doesn't imply that they will be the head of the Church.

Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul, he saw the Apostles and conversed with them. Clement wrote with authority while the Apostle John was still alive.  Clement was ordained by Peter. Clement learned the faith from the Apostle Peter.  Clement wrote, "And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration."

Is there any evidence that the apostle John recognized Clement's authority as higher than his own? Clement was ordained a bishop by Peter, not an apostle. It's odd how before that, Peter was ordaining apostles such as Matthias. I'm curious as to exactly when apostles were no longer needed.

[johnny]

rameumptom,

Calling a coucil did not influence the council. Enforcing the decrees did not influence the council.

At the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) their was dispute even though the Apostles and elders were inspired at this council. Rejection does not indicate that the Bishops were not inspired. Some truths were unfamiliar with the early Fathers. Revelation latter clarified these early writers. Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Church

[johnny]

Antley,

You say that "the one God refers to the Godhead" ... I am not following what you are saying, does this mean that you believe that the Godhead was manifest in the flesh?

I consider the councils to have been of God.

How many times do you build a foundation of a house? The apostles are the foundation of the house of God. The Bishops replaced the apostles as the overseers.

The evidence is that the Church at Corinth accepted Clement's authority, even though the Apostle John lived much closer to them and would have been the logical adjudicator. Ignatius personally knew the Apostle John. Ignatius was second sucessor of Peter at Anticoh. Ignatius of Antioch write that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches (see below).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). ... "You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?"

[johnny]

rameumptom,

Creeds do not restrict Christinity.

Joseph Smith's openness to new ideas bore his teaching of "three Gods". Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal three Gods.

[Bsix]

Johnny: Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal three Gods.

Six: Johnny is semantically correct in that the Old and New Testament do not say three Gods when referring to the members of the Godhead. I think that he scores a rather sly point that is a deceptive half-truth.

The Bible identifies all three members of the Godhead (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as dieties. The Bible very plainly speaks of multiple gods. The Bible clearly refers to God in a plural form. The Old Testament uses the plural form of "El" when referring to God. And, the Bible very clearly identify God the Father and God the Son as being very seperate, distinct, and heirachal individuals. The Father is "greater" than the Son. Jesus is the offspring of God. Jesus a creation of the Father. Jesus having a distinct and seperate will from the Father. Jesus having a personal God -- the Father. Jesus being subject to the Father. Jesus sitting to the side of God. Jesus ascending to the Father.

Regards,

Six

[Bsix]

The role of Constantine in regards to the Nicene Council seems to be a elusive truth for some of the traditional Christians on this thread.

Johnny for example started by declaring that Constantine did not influence the Council and Nicene Creed in any way.

However, over the course of this thread, he seems to have evolved his position to admit the secular political forces that caused Constantine, a non-Christian, to demand that the Church conduct the Council...and that as Emporor he played a key role in enforcing the edicts of the council.

Johnny now seems to claim that there was a vacuum of influence by Constantine during the actual Council.

However, that is apparently not true either. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Constantine "did play an important role at the Council." The enclyclopedia cites Eusebius of Caesarea writins describing Constantine as a "key figure" who "played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points." In fact, Columbia further cites Eusebius of Caesarea as claiming that "the Emperor suggested the key word "homoousious" that appears in the Nicene Creed."

I'm not sure how johnny can claim that Constantine did not influence the proceedings and decrees of the Nicene Council.

I have to ask...How the defining creedal doctrine of traditional Christianity could be authored by a non-Christian political ruler and still be considered legitimate, inspired and authentic doctrine by traditional Christians?

Regards,

Six

[Catholic Guy]

I'm not sure how johnny can claim that Constantine did not influence the proceedings and decrees of the Nicene Council.

I have to ask...How the defining creedal doctrine of traditional Christianity could be authored by a non-Christian political ruler and still be considered legitimate, inspired and authentic doctrine by traditional Christians?

Regards,

Six

Bsix,

Your going to tell me that all these ECF's meant nothing before Constantine.

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God