Duvduv

As there are no records of the proceedings of the original Council of Nicea and its participants it's fair to assume that it's not possible to determine whether anyone knew of the gospels or epistles.
However, it is still worth noting that in 325, unlike in 381, the Creed did not reflect ideas of either Pauline epistles or the parentage or events in the gospels.

Iskander

Nicene Council 325

The question was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, but something entirely different: what have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others?

mountainman

But this is the whole problem. The history of the Nicaean Council that has been taught in theological colleges from the 5th century until today in the 21st century was a history written in the early 5th century - a century and perhaps 3 or 4 generations after Nicaea.


Why for Christ's sake did they not preserve what was obviously for the victorious christians the most purportedly important council meeting (Nicaea) ever in the entire history of christianity? What sort of an answer does anyone have for this question?




Why is the received Nicaean (325 CE) History a 5th century version?


(1) Nicaeans non compos mentis ? ... The answer might be that Nicaea also marked Constantine's 20th year in the business of war, and he apparently partied and celebrated hard. Perhaps the Nicaean Christians got so plastered they simply forgot what happened and who they were? It took 100 years for the euphoria to wear off?

(2) Earlier histories got "Lost"? ... The usual answer given by ancient historians is that a number of histories were written but for some reason they got "lost". We might imagine these histories could really have said anything at all. One of the classic losses in this department were the earlier books 1 to 13 of the history of Ammianus. I would love to read his obituary to Constantine.

(3) The History of Nicaea required 5th century "Harmonization"? ... Perhaps the earlier histories were lacking in the parsimonious harmony that the 5th century christians (like Cyril of Alexandria) thought they deserved.

Iskander

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:
What were the causes leading to its assembling? It was called in response to the Arian controversy.


It decided on what should be taught and passed on to others and that was this basic teaching:

The Nicene Creed.

mountainman

Sure, Arius was a particularly pernicious heretic. But the question I am asking is not what Arius did to cause the council, but rather why are our received histories of the council 100 years after the event. Eusebius was around, Lactantius was around, there were alot of professionally trained scribes pumping out "Pulpit Bibles" ... why do we have no contemporary reports of Nicaea, and in their place have reports from a century downstream?


My guess is that many histories of the Nicaean "Council" were written, but few were chosen. At least one of the Gnostic acts mentions Nicaea.

Duvduv

Supposedly all the records were destroyed during the sacking of Constantinople, with the implication that there were not more than a single copy in the entire world. We shall never know what exactly happen unless we accept the word of heresiologist historians. However, the heresiologists did not pad the story of Nicea 325 with information from the gospels or epistles, suggesting the possibility that the Council did not know about either in 325. The fact that the Creed of 381 reflects more from 1 Corinthians and gospels is evidence that councils could be more interested than merely in a strict question of the minimum christology, which itself is questionable in the 325 creed itself.

Iskander

Records of ancient councils are like pink elephants: thin on the ground.

You now, finally and at long last, accept that you are only guessing and that what you are doing, with skill and imagination, is just filling the gaps in our knowledge of the history of religion as any other scholar on this subject does.

I like your posts because they are as enlightening as the ones posted by irritable and pompous academics but you have a better claim to be read with sympathy.

I hope you don’t find my post disagreeable, I do not mean any disrespect.

Duvduv

Given the dubious nature of the reliability of the heresiologists and the fact that there are no records for Nicea of 325, who knows? Perhaps it actually took place earlier or later in the 4th century, though no one thought to integrate identifiable ideas from the epistles or the gospels into that Creed. Perhaps Constantine was a convenient anchor like "under Pilate" for legitimization in the 4th century.
Same goes for the "successors" of Eusebius.

Isn't it interesting how many councils there were establishing and reestablishing the "authenticity" of "the Church" whereas the "heretics" such as the evil Arians had no such ecumenical councils to condemn the theology of the "orthodox" or anyone else....

Who knows if all these councils ever really existed, or that they were presented to reinforce the imperial doctrines?

But Constantine was convenient anyway since it was he who moved the capital from Rome to the new city he called Constantinople, and what better renewal than to provide the NEW empire with a NEW religious outlook in the NEW city?!

What could be better than remaking history with the view of establishing the legitimacy of the new religious system based on ideas circulating earlier, with its army of (backdated) historians and heresiologists confirming that the new system of the magnificent new empire had existed for centuries, and they were ever standing guard to protect this magnificence from the devilish wickedness of assorted heresies.......
Not a 4th century conspiracy but a 4th century period construction.
By way of comparison, what did the new American leaders do over a period of time for the new republic if not put to use bits and pieces from existing materials from Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and Voltaire and put in place something altogether new?!

Duvduv

If one takes the heresiologists with a huge grain of salt, what are we left with concerning the 4th century, especially concerning Constantine and Nicea? Lots of question marks.......But either way, the Byzantine Empire got its NEW IDEOLOGY in a NEW CITY, and most certainly its advocates to reshape history in a way that legitimizes their new ideology, with all its "wars" against those who had ostensibly deformed the truth as presented by the Byzantine religion. All very useful.....

Duvduv

To that extent it might be perfectly correct to rename Christianity as BYZANTIUMISM...........