Chocky

Manichaeism yes, for a few of these points. It was dualistic, like Gnosticism. A lot of these beliefs were popular in the 4th c., as we find in some of the apocryphal gospels, acts, etc from Nag Hammadi. Manichaeism had been kicking around for a long time when the council of Toledo was called, but a descendant (Priscillianism) was newer and had a lot of the same beliefs.

Statements that sound Trinitarian were made before Nicaea (i.e. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian), but it seems like it didn't become a hot topic until Arius, and before him, Paul of Samosata. (Duvduv, this is how little we know about Paul.)

Nicaea didn't really settle Christological issues - the remaining "big six" ecumenical councils had to deal with the fallout. People liked bickering over the precise meaning of words.

Duvduv

I doubt very much that there was either an Irenaeus or Ignatius in the second century. The knowledge about Nicea depends on accepting the views of official propagandists at face value which I was suggesting are full of contradictions and often make no contextual sense. For example, I referred to Athanasius and also the meaning of poorly attended councils starting with Nicea itself.

And why was Nicea so poorly attended given the enormous step forward of Constantine's magnanimity in legalizing "Christianity " that supposedly had some 1800 bishops and several million followers at a time when he wasn't a Christian himself and surely couldn't have cared one wit about the subtleties of their christology?? Unless these events were not the way propagandists described them.Such constant low attendance throughout the century could only make sense if there were no 1800 bishops to start with or all those millions of followers.

It appears that the true ascendancy of the orthodox did not occur until thw days of Theodosius and thereafter in the FIFTH century.

Duvduv

It's also ironic that over 150 after Justin Martyr's supposed writings identifying Jesus as the Davidic messiah and supposedly more than 200 years after the gospels, this pillar does not get included in the Creeds.

Toto

You seem to think that religions are defined by their beliefs. Sociologists who study religions say that religions are primarily social groups, and the stated beliefs are often poorly understood or subject to change.

After 2000 years of Christianity, Christians are still at odds over the nature of Christ and the essentials of the creed.

Duvduv

Well, not all sociologists view things that way. Take Max Weber for instance. It is incorrect to discount the importance of beliefs and values as factors of what people do.
In this case, the fundamental pillar of "the church" was still undefined almost two centuries or more after supposedly coming into existence, without even references to the original texts that were supposedly held canonical and sacred by the 4th century.

Of course this would not answer the question why the so-called defining councils were so poorly attended in the
4th century suggested by the propagandists themselves. Unless they were wildly exaggerating the demographics and even the number of bishops who were invited. Again, here we have the Emperor legalizing the faith, and 90% of the "bishops" of the empire don't even show up at his request even if there was no central authority to direct them to do so and even if they made up a number of sects.

The usual description is that he was so concerned about the subtle christological issues when he wasn't even a convert. All this sounds quite fishy.

sotto voce

Like everyone else.

Sociologists would. They'd say it. They get paid for saying it.



Those who oppose Christianity say that, too. But they never prove it.

Of course, all they may be doing is including with Christians their own friends who pose as Christians.

Duvduv

I was sure folks would have alot more to say on this thread. Well, maybe tomorrow.

mountainman

Twisted Histories of the 4th century:

Huon

This paragraph of wikipedia contains at least one unproved statement (1800 bishops) and several approximations.

Cecilian of Carthage was the only African bishop.
Osius of Cordoba (Spain) was the only bishop of Spain, and he is said to have been the representative of the bishop of Rome, too old, and who certainly could not find an Italian bishop for that .

wkipedia also quotes a Coptic encyclopedia, and names a Nicasius bishop of Dijon (Burgundy - Gaul), who was never called N of Dijon. A Nicasius (Saint Nicaise in French) is supposed to have been killed by the Vandals in 407, or by the Huns in 451. This guy could not be at Nicaea. There was no bishop coming from Gaul to Nicaea. There is a mention of another synod at Arles (near Marseilles) in 314. The Donatists were condemned.

Chocky

The "1800 bishops" figure seems to come from Gibbon. He says "The numbers are not ascertained by any ancient writer or original catalogue", and that the figure was arrived at in the 18th century. Is anyone aware of any research on this since then?

I thought it sounded unrealistically high for the church in AD 325.