mountainman

Hey judge,

As an afterthought my suggestion would be to research in depth the nature of the immediately preceeding "Constantinian Council" which was convened at Antioch before Nicaea. Robin Lane-Fox in his book (from $4.25 ) "Pagans and Christians" (or via: amazon.co.uk) covers this council in depth and spends a great deal of time on the "Oration" which Constantine could not help himself but deliver to the attendees.

It was a PR job about the "new and strange" person (perhaps divine) with the code name "ΙΣ".

Constantine issued rescripts after the council which have been interpretted as being orders to have the pagans tortured and so confess the error of their ways. My notes are here.

Additionally, the lead in period to the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea should take in the military victory of Constantine's army over that of Lucinius, and the subsequent orders by Constantine for the utter destruction of some of the most ancient and highly revered temples (containing libraries), and shrines and obelisks in the eastern empire.

Finally, the preface to the understanding of the Council of Nicaea should also take into account Constantine's prohibitions. These are adequately expressed as follows:

Kapyong

Gday,
The Council of Nicea ?

Here's what I've heard :

The CoN chose the books of the Bible.

The CoN decided by vote that Jesus was God, not man.

The CoN formalised the trinity.

The CoN removed re-incarnation from the Bible.


K.
;-)

mountainman

Gday Kapyong,

There is alot of hearsay concerning the CoN.

The sources dont mention anything about selecting books at the CoN. It seems Constantine's Bible was edited and published entirely independently of the CoN.


There was voting and a number of commentators such as Robin Lane-Fox suggest that the voting attendees were subject to duress by Constantine's military presence during this process. Certainly there was a controversy between the use of homoiousios (similar in substance) and homoousios (same substance).

Was Jesus of the same substance or of a similar substance to divinity and/or god? This was a big question at the time. It was not answered by the vote. The Arian controversy ensued until well after the closure of the canon c.367 CE, and the same big question remains open today.


The trinity, recently developed as the essence of Plotinus's Platonic principles of philosophy, was not mentioned at Nicaea. Only later did the trinity infilitrate the orthodox state christian religion, despite the earlier assertions of the very knowledgable Tertullian.


The Bible was not mentioned at the CoN.



About the only thing that is agreed upon is that when the attendees eventually signed on the dotted line they signed an oath (I am not sure it would be called a "Creed") before Constantine as follows:

Creed of Nicaea

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God born as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the Father’s substance, God from God,
light from light, true God from true God, born not made, homoousios with the Father, that is of the same substance as the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth. Who for the sake of us human beings and our salvation came down and was incarnate, and becoming a human being suffered and rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven, from where he is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say that there was a time when he was not,
and before he was born he was not,
and that he was made out of nothing existing
or who say that God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
or is subject to alteration or change,
the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

[Rufinius, HE, Book 10, Part 6 - Creed of Nicaea]

Particular attention should be given to the disclaimer clause at the end.

Kapyong

Gday,

No!
Really?
You're kidding me !?


K.

mountainman

But we can rely on Eusebius as always recording true hearsay.
After all, Eusebius attended the CoN and sat at the right hand of ....

Got a violin?

Joan of Bark

Interesting, is it not, that the CoN never mentions scripture, sacred or otherwise? Perhaps many "Christians" of the time simply didn't believe that any writing were sacred.

Chili

Yes and notice that they called it the Catholic Church and not the Christian church simply because Catholics are not Christian, and in the 'iota argument' the Church is made Holy in denying the humanity of the Son after crucifixion and subsequent transformation of body mind and soul into the essence of God.

In essence this actually makes it the living Church that is Holy and therefore infallible which is a necessary condition as is shown in the lineage of Luke.

Chili

They were Catholic and not Christian.

Chili

. . . and of course in "my Lord AND my God" now of the same substance in John 20:28 to confirm the transformation of the body after the transformation of the mind in Galilee [where that got 'finished'] with the annihilation of the soul = soulfree and so fancyfree and that is signified by the opposite piercing of the heart bleeding both [incarnate] water and [carnate] blood and thus right back to God.

PS, notice that the lineage in Luke goes 'back to God.'

Chili

No he is not right about that to say that our balls do not have a mind of their own in the same way as guns do not have a mind of their own and only kill people as we direct them to.

If nothing else it removes the sanctity from our 6th Sacrament where we become Jesuit by nature (Holy Orders) much like the Nazarites were in Judaism and thus a psychological nuetering takes place that prepares us for the hypostatic union to follow as purgatorians (small p).

In Buddhism it is where the Kundalini is raised from the crotch to the heart in anticipation of ascension to the mind.