When Constantine Coerced The Bishops ...

[LeSellers]

You are free to dispute anything you like. Refuting it is another matter.

As you are free to make any outlandish statement without any evidence.

You ought to read the OP. The evidence is there; a very long quotation from a non-LDS scholar who's studied the issue in depth and detail.

There is no evidence at all that there was any revelation to the Bishops at Nicaea, and much supporting the idea that Constantine forced them to come to an agreement. As Drake said, his goal was unity, they desired a peaceful outcome. Eusebius' account, among many others, does not mention revelation, does not mention inspiration. Constantine himself eventually resurrected a word earlier condemned by these same men (not the individuals, but those holding the same offices) 60 years earlier, a word, homoousio, invented by the Gnostics (heretics by the standards of the age, and by yours, as well, if I understand it correctly).

What would you like as supporting evidence? Mentioning revelation is supportive? That's more conjecture isn't it?

Revelation does not come at the bidding of emperors, not at the behest of powers.

Says who? Why not?

Well, maybe so. I do recall that King Saul got a revelation from the witch of Endor. But I really meant that revelation from God doesn't come by imperial decree.

If there is a true parallel between Constantine's council of Nicaea and another king's convoking the leaders of His (non-apostate) church (the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, doesn't seem to fit the bill), then show us.

Did Paul not say:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

No, I think Jesus did.

He had died, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven by the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians.

Yet it seems it was "principalities" that won this battle. "Powers" overcame the spirit; ...

The power of men overcame the Spirit? Is that really what you mean?

Yes. The Holy Ghost doesn't abide in unclean tabernacles, and He doesn't force men to do the right. When people refuse to obey Him, He leaves them to their own devices.

We have noted the kingship of Saul. Remember that God didn't want Israel to have a king, but when they insisted, He relented, and allowed them to have their will (much to their cost).

... and there was a great deal of "spiritual wickedness in high places" that used men's needs to eat, sleep defecate, and urinate to force them to accept a word and a creed built thereon so he could rule his empire in peace. He ended up exiling those who refused, on principle, to sign the

If it were not true. But what if it is true? Is it still "spiritual wickedness"?

It is not true. The hypothetical question is based on a false premise.

If it were true, then it would not have been "spiritual wickedness, and there would be some evidence that God's hand was in the matter. That evidence is sorely lacking.

accursed document.

"Accursed" by whom?

Jesus Christ: "... the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; ..." JS-H 1:19

The fact that the creeds reject the universal Fatherhood of God, and even distort the relationship between the Father and His Only Begotten and First-Born Son makes them abominations. The further fact that creedalists cannot accept the truths of the nature of God because they worship the Greek philosophies entrenched in the creeds makes them abominations and accursed.

If you can verify that the bishops were (or even claimed to be) inspired, bring it to us.

I would think just being a bishop is a claim in itself. One with which you may disagree, but still... wait, you have bishops to don't you?

To quote a famous philosopher, sdrawkcab, "Just because you claim to receive new, non-biblical doctrines by the 'Holy Ghost,' doesn't make it so."

They called themselves bishops, but that didn't make them inspired, nor did it mean they were called of God as was Aaron.

And, BTW, if they were inspired, why is that revelation not in the Bible, not recorded, not part of the canon?

9) And, BTW, if they - the bom, D&C, etc. - were inspired, why is that revelation not in the Bible, not recorded, not part of the canon?

They are in the canon. You just reject them. That's not the same thing, doncha know. The Bible is not the only book that recorded God's word and will for us.

We LDSs are not bibliolaters, we don't need the Bible the way you all do. We have the source of the Bible: living prophets. If God had not called prophets, you would not have the Bible.

9A) It is. Read John's Gospel.

You'll have to show me how John recorded the pretended revelation of Nicaea some two and a quarter centuries before it happened.

Lehi

[johnny]

LeSellers,

The Council of Nicaea (and all of the others before and since) is simply antithetical to the plain and biblical method God had used for 4,000 years when He had something to tell His children, or when they had strayed and needed setting right: In every case prior to this, He had called a prophet, sometimes more than one. There was never a case of a "council" of this sort, called by the political ruler to regulate (not "correct", just "normalize") His kingdom.

In the Church of Christ prophets are secondary not primary like the Mormon President. When the apostle Paul had a question he did not go to the prophets of the church, he went to Jerusalem and a council of apostles and elders came together to consider the question (Acts 15). After much debating the council at Jerusalem arrived at a decree that was good with the spirit and what was written by the earlier holy prophets. After the councilâ??s decision the prophets Judas and Silas went out exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them.

And let's not forget the whole point of the passage I cited: Nicaea was not a God-ordained council, it was not conducted under inspiration; there was no divine imprimatur â?? the only stamp of approval was Constantine's. The Nicene creed (and by extension, all the creeds, since they were manufactured by the same process), whatever it is, it is not the word of God.

The Roman Emperor Constantine convoked the first general (or "ecumenical") council of the Catholic Church, that of Nicaea. The Council of Constantinople was not, in fact, called or planned as an ecumenical council, nor was the bishop of Rome, the pope, even represented at it. Only subsequently, when it received papal approbation, did the Council come to be recognized as ecumenical. It represents a classic example of what in modern times has been called the "development of doctrine" in the Church. (see article below for more information)

THE CHURCH OF NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

It's all very complicated, and, as we have noted, political in the extreme. And Constantine was extremely consistent with his own motivation: he wanted peace through religion, and forgave whom he would, condemned others, and spread his favors as best he thought to attain that goal.

The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325. (see articles below for more information)

The Church Before Nicaea

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612ec.asp

Christians R Us

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea3.asp

[rhinomelon]

I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Constantine coerced the conclusion of the council. There is a marked difference between coercing an outcome, and enforcing it after it has been concluded. From what I've read, Constantine enforced it, but did not coerce it.

Take care, everyone

[LeSellers]

In the Church of Christ prophets are secondary not primary like the Mormon President.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Paul disagrees with your characterization.

However, it is a bit confusing because the Bible uses the word "prophet" (προφήτης) in two different (albeit closely related) ways:

1. One who has the spirit of prophesy and who speaks the mind and will of God.
   
2. One having Priesthood authority (the Ephesians passage being a prime example), whose calling is to lead the Church.
   

Judas and Silas were of the first sort; Peter and James were of the second, and more important kind.

When the apostle Paul had a question he did not go to the prophets of the church, he went to Jerusalem and a council of apostles and elders came together to consider the question (Acts 15).

Au contraire, it was precisely to the prophets that he went. Peter, James, etc., were prophets and acted in their capacity as prophets and Apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ. It sounds like General Conference to me: the phrase Luke uses is "the whole church", rather than "the church at Jerusalem".

I'm sure you noticed, too, that it was not a council of bishops, but of Apostles and "elders" (what we would call "General Authorities" in the XIX) that made the decision and that it was Peter's word that ended the dispute, the Peter to whom Christ promised to give "the keys of the Kingdom" and the power to loose and bind both in heaven and on earth; Peter, the chief Apostle.

Further, while there was "much disputing", did you notice that Peter went back to a revelation he had received on the very subject of the discussion?

And, while we're on the topic, isn't it telling that even at this early date, the forces of apostasy were in full array? And that it took an Apostle (not a bishop) to refute the error and get the church tracking as God had decreed?

After much debating the council at Jerusalem arrived at a decree that was good with the spirit and what was written by the earlier holy prophets. After the councilâ??s decision the prophets Judas and Silas went out exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them.

You said "good with the spirit". That's from verse 28. The weighty matter of inspiration is here resolved. While the apostles in Jerusalem did receive inspiration, and said so, the bishops at Nicaea did not, or at least none of them mentioned it.

The Roman Emperor Constantine convoked the first general (or "ecumenical") council of the Catholic Church, that of Nicaea. The Council of Constantinople was not, in fact, called or planned as an ecumenical council, nor was the bishop of Rome, the pope, even represented at it.

That would have been a wonder, as the bishop of Rome was not the "Pope" ("daddy"; in Italian, "pappa"; in French, "pape"; in Aramaic, "abba") at that time. He was just another bishop, with no special standing among his peers. It was only after the political might of the empire made him powerful that he had the pre-eminence of the "papacy".

By that time, as the council we are discussing proves, the Church of Jesus Christ had long since disappeared from the earth, leaving only an echo of herself, and none of the power thereof.

Only subsequently, when it received papal approbation, did the Council come to be recognized as ecumenical. It represents a classic example of what in modern times has been called the "development of doctrine" in the Church.

Once again, we see the rewriting of history to validate the status quo.

The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325.

By what ecclesiastical authority did a non-Christian "preside" over a council of churchmen? Sorry, it simply doesn't pass muster.

Lehi

[cjcampbell]

LeSellers,

In the Church of Christ prophets are secondary not primary like the Mormon President. When the apostle Paul had a question he did not go to the prophets of the church, he went to Jerusalem and a council of apostles and elders came together to consider the question (Acts 15).

Once again a gross misrepresentation of the facts and of our beliefs by one who has pretensions to Christianity. Believe it or not, if Paul today had a question, he still would go to the council of the Apostle of the church today. That is what prophets are, Johnny, and you know it.

How on earth can you continually make the claim on the one hand, as you have so often in the past, that Paul is authoritative in his own right, then claim that his doctrines were subject to approval by a council of the apostles and elders? Do you not see the contradiction of your position?

[johnny]

LeSellers,

Paul disagrees with your characterization.

Paul would agree with my characterization that prophets are secondary in the Church, see 1Cor 12:28:

1Cor.12

[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

However, it is a bit confusing because the Bible uses the word "prophet" (p??f?

[johnny]

cjcampbell,

Once again a gross misrepresentation of the facts and of our beliefs by one who has pretensions to Christianity. Believe it or not, if Paul today had a question, he still would go to the council of the Apostle of the church today. That is what prophets are, Johnny, and you know it.

When the President of the Mormon Church speaks for God is he judged by other prophets, please explain?

How on earth can you continually make the claim on the one hand, as you have so often in the past, that Paul is authoritative in his own right, then claim that his doctrines were subject to approval by a council of the apostles and elders? Do you not see the contradiction of your position?

I am not following you, could you please provide the quotes so I can better understand what you are talking about.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers,

I wish you'd call me Lehi. It's my name.

Paul would agree with my characterization that prophets are secondary in the Church:

1Cor.12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

I misread what you meant. Your first message seemed to say that prophets were secondary to the scriptures, not to the Apostles.

Of course in this you are right to say that there were firstly Apostles, and secondly prophets. But that is just what we believe, our prophet being the senior Apostle of Jesus Christ.

The early Church did not have a Prophet of the church like today's Mormon Church. The early church contained many prophets who edified the church. The church at Antioch and Jerusalem contained prophets.

No one is saying anything different.

Well, no LDSs, anyway. I have heard many an LDS-critic claim there were no prophets after Jesus.

In the church when prophets had a revelation it was judged by other prophets or those who were spiritual.

Which is what happens in the Church of Jesus Christ today. The prophet (senior Apostle, I guess I have to make this clear every time) has a revelation, and the other Apostles listen to it, and "judge" it before publishing it to the world.

On your side of the aisle, however, there are no prophets, neither those receiving revelation, nor those to judge it.

Acts 15 sounds like a council to me.

Call it what you will, it was a gathering of the general church, in addition to a synod of the Priesthood.

It was council of Apostles and elders. At this time the Tweleve Apostles were still alive. Bishops are elders, the Apostle Peter was also an elder.

Yeah, and now they're all dead, you have no one to reveal Gods' will to you, so you're stuck with the Bible and its limited set of knowledge of the eternities.

Much disputing just like the council at Nicaea.

With the huge difference of there being explicit revelation in the Jerusalem council, and none even hinted at in Nicaea, three centuries later.

It took an Apostle because the tweleve Aposltes were still alive. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. The Twelve Apostles were special witness who witnessed Jesus alive on earth and who ate and drank with him after his death.

So, eh, how does Paul fit in here? He never met Jesus on earth, much less ate and drank with Him, either before or after His death. He did not witness Him alive on the earth. Is he an Apostle?

They were given great power and great grace. They were given the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Judas was replaced according to scripture. The replacement of Judas had to have accompanied the apostles and Jesus.

Yes, of course, Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. But that qualification was not eternal, else the others named as Apostles would never have made the cut, Paul the most obvious.

Just because it is not mentioned, does not mean that the Bishops did not receive inspiration. Bishops are overseers of the church by the Holy Ghost.

For the local churches, at most. Yes, the ancient bishops were the equivalent of Stake Presidents today. But that hardly means they had the authority to revamp the doctrines of Christ, as they did at Nicaea.

The Bishop of Rome was Peter's successor.

There is nothing in the Bible that tells us that the bishop of Rome was anyone's successor, much less Peter's. It is only self-serving tradition that makes it so in the Roman church. History shows a much different picture, one of political infighting (and outfighting, too — there was much bloodshed) and not all bishops kowtowed to Rome at any point in time. That's why there are all the eastern orthodox churches, from Greece and Russia to Syria and Egypt.

The Papacy is a man-made organization.

The Church of Jesus Christ was not taken from the earth; the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. The After the aposltes dies Bishops had authority. After the apostles died the Bishiops continued stead fast in the apostle’s doctrine.

No, they did not. Had they, there would not have been a need for Nicaea, nor for any of the dozens of other councils that followed, nor for the Reformation. Luther's 95 treatises were (mostly) dead on. The Roman Catholic Church fell into deep apostasy long before Luther. In fact, the Christian church had fallen into apostasy long before there was a Roman Catholic Church.

The Bishops stood fast held to the oral and written traditions that the apostles taught. The Bishops were wise and built their house upon a rock with Jesus being the chief cornerstone.

That's an unfounded assumption.

Besides, the scripture to which you just alluded goes on to say that the church will be built on the foundation of Apostles and prophets, not tradition, and not bishops. It's easy to see why you'd forget that fragment, since you have neither Apostles nor prophets.

The Roman Emperor Constantine simply convoked the council. When the council received papal approbation they it came to be recognized as authorative.

Authoritative to the Catholic Church, perhaps, but there is no approval from God.

Your first point above, though, is absolutely incorrect. Constantine did much more that merely convoke (by what heavenly authority has never been shown) this council, he presided over it, and was deeply involved in its deliberations. He demanded an outcome, and when the bishops could not come to one on their own, used the power of his imperial office to force one on them using the non-biblical, and vague word "homousio" to give them all enough cover to make it palatable to them. He got precisely what he wanted (although that result was far off in the future): a resolution, however ad hoc it may have been, to the biggest question in Christendom, and thus a tool to instore peace in his kingdom.

Lehi

[johnny]

Lehi,

On your side of the aisle, however, there are no prophets, neither those receiving revelation, nor those to judge it.

I would disagree that the Catholic Church has no prophets, below are some related Catholic Church teachings:

God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Church. The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit remains present and active in the Church (CCC79). Today's Catholic Church has a prophetic office that proclaims to men (CCC2036). Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding (CCC892). The living teaching office of the Catholic Church alone is entrusted with the task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (CCC85).

Yeah, and now they're all dead, you have no one to reveal Gods' will to you, so you're stuck with the Bible and its limited set of knowledge of the eternities.

As a Catholic I am not stuck wit the Bible, below are some related Catholic Church teachings:

Catholics believe all that is contained in the written word of God, sacred tradition, and what the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed (CCC182).

With the huge difference of there being explicit revelation in the Jerusalem council, and none even hinted at in Nicaea, three centuries later.

It appears you are not familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church, it teaches:

Revelation is complete but it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith to gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries (CCC66).

So, eh, how does Paul fit in here? He never met Jesus on earth, much less ate and drank with Him, either before or after His death. He did not witness Him alive on the earth. Is he an Apostle?

There were others who were called apostles such as Jesus, Paul and Barnabus. Paul was different than the other apostles, when Paul was unable to settle a dispute he who went to the twelve apostles in Jerusalem.

For the local churches, at most. Yes, the ancient bishops were the equivalent of Stake Presidents today. But that hardly means they had the authority to revamp the doctrines of Christ, as they did at Nicaea.

The ancient bishops had the authority to ordain and appoint just like the apostle Paul. They did not revamp the doctrines of Christ. The outcome of Nicea was consistent with the doctrines of Christ.

The Papacy is a man-made organization.

I would consider the Mormon Church Priesthood a man-made organization.Joseph Smith could not have received the priesthood by the physical laying on hands of dead individuals. The dead do not have physical hands, their physical body of flesh is returned to the dust of the ground. Those who die are raised with spiritual bodies, bodies that have no flesh and bones. A person's body will not be changed to a glorified, incorruptible body till the second coming of Jesus after the last enemy of death is destroyed.

No, they did not. Had they, there would not have been a need for Nicaea, nor for any of the dozens of other councils that followed, nor for the Reformation. Luther's 95 treatises were (mostly) dead on.

Clarification was the work of the early councils. During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it.

The Roman Catholic Church fell into deep apostasy long before Luther. In fact, the Christian church had fallen into apostasy long before there was a Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church did not fall into deep apostasy. The Mormon "great apostasy" doctrine is a myth: If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must display clearly biblical and historical evidence supporting it. The Bible says that in latter times some shall depart from the faith taught by the apostles and some will not endure sound doctrine. Mormons have departed from the apostolic faith.

Besides, the scripture to which you just alluded goes on to say that the church will be built on the foundation of Apostles and prophets, not tradition, and not bishops. It's easy to see why you'd forget that fragment, since you have neither Apostles nor prophets.

The Catholic Church is built on the foundation of Apostles and prophets. Today's Catholic Church has a prophetic office the proclaims to men and an apostolic ministry. It's easy to see that the Mormon Church has false prophets because false prophets bring heresy and false apostles who transform themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Authoritative to the Catholic Church, perhaps, but there is no approval from God.

I would say that the Mormon Church has no approval from God because Joseph Smith could not have received the priesthood by the physical laying on hands of dead individuals.

Your first point above, though, is absolutely incorrect. Constnatine did much more that merely convoke (by what heavenly authority has never been shown) this council, he presided over it, and was deeply involved in its deliberations. He demanded an outcome, and when the bishops could not come to one on their own, used the power of his imperial office to force one on them using the non-biblical, and vague word "homousio" to give them all enough cover to make it palatable to them. He got precisely what he wanted (although that result was far off in the future): a resolution, however ad hoc it may have been, to the biggest question in Christendom, and thus a tool to instore peace in his kingdom

You are missing the point, Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Churchâ??s bishops. The council later was recognized as ecumenical or authoritative. The Creed was promulgated by a general council of the Church.

Just as the apostles at the primitive Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) did not doubt their authority to decide for the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, so the bishops at Nicaea took for granted that they too possessed authority to decide for the whole Church.

[Bill Hamblin]

Lehi,

You are missing the point, Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Churchâ??s bishops. The council later was recognized as ecumenical or authoritative. The Creed was promulgated by a general council of the Church.

Constantine attended the council, though he did not vote. But Roman emperors had many ways to control bishops.

In addition to Drake's book, already mentioned, see:

Dungan, David, Constantineâ??s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, (Fortress, 2006)

MacMullen, Ramsay, Voting About God in Early Church Councils, (Yale, 2006)

[Beowulf]

Bill, why didn't you object to Johnny's characterization of Nicea as not being put in force until the Pope ratified it?

The Bishop of Rome did not even attend the Council. He was not consulted about it. And they certainly did not wait for his seal of approval... In fact, he was a non-entity as far as Byzantium was concerned.

The Bishop of Rome's rise to power began in the 370s, when the Emperors were no longer paying much attention to Rome. There was thus a power vacuum in the city, and someone had to fill it, In effect, the Pope became Mayor. The first Pope with truly broad influence was Pope Leo in the 450s...

(Although Augustine of North Africa did get Pope Damasus to condemn his foe Pelagius in the 410s...)

Beowulf

[johnny]

Bill Hamblin,

Constantine attended the council, though he did not vote. But Roman emperors had many ways to control bishops.

Did this "control" result in the outcome of the council being comprised, if so please provide some historical facts and scripture to back it up.

The Nicene Creed is not an abomination. The Nicene Creed that resulted from the council is consistent with scripture. This Creed clarifies her apostolic faith and helps defend against heresies. False prophets can bring heresies and false prophets can deceive the elect.

[johnny]

Beowulf,

Bill, why didn't you object to Johnny's characterization of Nicea as not being put in force until the Pope ratified it?

The point is that the council received papal approbation.

The Bishop of Rome's rise to power began in the 370s, when the Emperors were no longer paying much attention to Rome. There was thus a power vacuum in the city, and someone had to fill it, In effect, the Pope became Mayor. The first Pope with truly broad influence was Pope Leo in the 450s...

It began to rise because for the first centuries of its existence, Christianity was an outlawed religion, persecuted by the state. Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313. The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine.

[David Waltz]

Hi guys,

I would like to make a recommendation to all: read Christopher Steadâ??s Divine Substance!!! This book is unequalled in presenting the historical and theological use of the important Greek terms used by the early CFâ??s and Councilsâ??including homoousios.

I own the book, but thanks to Google Books, it can now be read online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I_Q4XOLd...iuX3q5nYdMLThSc

The chapter on homoousios begins here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I_Q4XOLd...LThSc#PPA190,M1

Time to catch up !

Grace and peace,

David

[Tanyan]

Bill Hamblin,

Did this "control" result in the outcome of the council being comprised, if so please provide some historical facts and scripture to back it up.

The Nicene Creed is not an abomination. The Nicene Creed that resulted from the council is consistent with scripture. This Creed clarifies her apostolic faith and helps defend against heresies. False prophets can bring heresies and false prophets can deceive the elect.

Round and round in the historical arena. As with the creed being consistant with scripture many see it painted with some scripture along with 2nd century middle neo platoism. . In His Debt/Grace. Tanyan.

[Hoops22]

Hi guys,

I would like to make a recommendation to all: read Christopher Steadâ??s Divine Substance!!! This book is unequalled in presenting the historical and theological use of the important Greek terms used by the early CFâ??s and Councilsâ??including homoousios.

I own the book, but thanks to Google Books, it can now be read online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I_Q4XOLd...iuX3q5nYdMLThSc

The chapter on homoousios begins here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I_Q4XOLd...LThSc#PPA190,M1

Time to catch up !

Grace and peace,

David

Excellent, sir. Thank you.

[johnny]

Tanyan,

Round and round in the historical arena. As with the creed being consistant with scripture many see it painted with some scripture along with 2nd century middle neo platoism.

Could you please identify this addition of "2nd century middle neo platoism" and demonstrate how it is inconsistent with scripture ... thanks.

Creeds summarize the faith that Apostolic Christians profess. Creeds help Apostolic Christians identify false prophets and false teachers who teach heresy. The creeds are consistent with scripture and what the apostles of Christ taught.

The word (homoousion) proved necessary to affirm unmistakably the truth, also contained in Scripture, that the man Jesus of Nazareth was God. The word authentically expresses the true faith of the Church: Christ is "one in being" with the Father. It is a word not found in Scripture that nevertheless proved indispensable to the correct expression of the faith. The Arians did not understand that Christ had to be of the same substance as the Father,if indeed Christ himself was Godâ??just as a human child is of exactly the same (human) substance as his father, no more and no less "human." Arianism was a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God. See link below for more information.

THE CHURCH OF NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

The decision of the Church at the Council of Nicaea was that Jesus Christ was indeed "one in being" (Greek homo-ousios) with God the Father. Jesus was, in other words, of the same substance of the Father; that is, Jesus was himself God, as Thomas had testified, as the apostles had preached, as the evangelists had recorded in the Gospels, and as the Church had handed down to the faithful of subsequent generations.

The Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from an ecumenical Council. Just as the original apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) had decided on the relationship of the old law to the new revelation of Christ by declaring that "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden" (Acts 15:28), so the fourth-century Catholic bishops at Nicaea unhesitatingly declared what the faith of the apostles was, as the Church had preserved and taught it. The teaching authority of the Church residing in its hierarchy-what is today called the Church's magisterium. The bishops of the Catholic Church possess the authority given by Christ to the apostles, which had been passed on in turn to them. See link below for more information.

The Church Before Nicaea

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612ec.asp

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

Could you please identify this addition of "2nd century middle neo platoism" and demonstrate how it is inconsistent with scripture ... thanks.

Creeds summarize the faith that Apostolic Christians profess. Creeds help Apostolic Christians identify false prophets and false teachers who teach heresy. The creeds are consistent with scripture and what the apostles of Christ taught.

The word (homoousion) proved necessary to affirm unmistakably the truth, also contained in Scripture, that the man Jesus of Nazareth was God. The word authentically expresses the true faith of the Church: Christ is "one in being" with the Father. It is a word not found in Scripture that nevertheless proved indispensable to the correct expression of the faith. The Arians did not understand that Christ had to be of the same substance as the Father,if indeed Christ himself was Godâ??just as a human child is of exactly the same (human) substance as his father, no more and no less "human." Arianism was a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God. See link below for more information.

THE CHURCH OF NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

The decision of the Church at the Council of Nicaea was that Jesus Christ was indeed "one in being" (Greek homo-ousios) with God the Father. Jesus was, in other words, of the same substance of the Father; that is, Jesus was himself God, as Thomas had testified, as the apostles had preached, as the evangelists had recorded in the Gospels, and as the Church had handed down to the faithful of subsequent generations.

The Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from an ecumenical Council. Just as the original apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) had decided on the relationship of the old law to the new revelation of Christ by declaring that "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden" (Acts 15:28), so the fourth-century Catholic bishops at Nicaea unhesitatingly declared what the faith of the apostles was, as the Church had preserved and taught it. The teaching authority of the Church residing in its hierarchy-what is today called the Church's magisterium. The bishops of the Catholic Church possess the authority given by Christ to the apostles, which had been passed on in turn to them. See link below for more information.

The Church Before Nicaea

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612ec.asp

Hummm, it seems that it has been discussed in the past. Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[PacMan]

Johnny,

Why are you still on this board? And why haven't you learned anything about Mormonism?

In the Church of Christ prophets are secondary not primary like the Mormon President. When the apostle Paul had a question he did not go to the prophets of the church, he went to Jerusalem and a council of apostles and elders came together to consider the question (Acts 15).

What a terribly ignorant strawman. The fact is that all of the Apostles are considered prophets, and the President of the Church is considered the chief or senior Apostle. To attack a colloquialism is to air about your completely naiveness.

If your posts were meaningful, I'd be more reticent to point out your glaring short-comings. But considering your posts are pointless, fruitless, and predicated on your vain imaginations of the real world which surrounds us, why don't you just go away?

PacMan

[PacMan]

The creeds are consistent with scripture and what the apostles of Christ taught.

Eve' doth the razor approach the neck

to stop incessant chirping,

For words continuous and monotonous drawl,

Don't make true, some fool's burping.

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

Could you please identify this addition of "2nd century middle neo platoism" and demonstrate how it is inconsistent with scripture ... thanks.

Creeds summarize the faith that Apostolic Christians profess. Creeds help Apostolic Christians identify false prophets and false teachers who teach heresy. The creeds are consistent with scripture and what the apostles of Christ taught.

The word (homoousion) proved necessary to affirm unmistakably the truth, also contained in Scripture, that the man Jesus of Nazareth was God. The word authentically expresses the true faith of the Church: Christ is "one in being" with the Father. It is a word not found in Scripture that nevertheless proved indispensable to the correct expression of the faith. The Arians did not understand that Christ had to be of the same substance as the Father,if indeed Christ himself was Godâ??just as a human child is of exactly the same (human) substance as his father, no more and no less "human." Arianism was a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God. See link below for more information.

THE CHURCH OF NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

The decision of the Church at the Council of Nicaea was that Jesus Christ was indeed "one in being" (Greek homo-ousios) with God the Father. Jesus was, in other words, of the same substance of the Father; that is, Jesus was himself God, as Thomas had testified, as the apostles had preached, as the evangelists had recorded in the Gospels, and as the Church had handed down to the faithful of subsequent generations.

The Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from an ecumenical Council. Just as the original apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) had decided on the relationship of the old law to the new revelation of Christ by declaring that "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden" (Acts 15:28), so the fourth-century Catholic bishops at Nicaea unhesitatingly declared what the faith of the apostles was, as the Church had preserved and taught it. The teaching authority of the Church residing in its hierarchy-what is today called the Church's magisterium. The bishops of the Catholic Church possess the authority given by Christ to the apostles, which had been passed on in turn to them. See link below for more information.

The Church Before Nicaea

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612ec.asp

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicea.htm

[Tanyan]

See also http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm