Christians view of the Council of Nicea?

Question

What are your views on the Council of Nicea which took place in 325AD and was convened by constantine 1? I have done much research, and it seems that before this date, the apostles of Jesus believed that he was a Prophet , sent by the One true Gog. However, it was at this council that it was "decided" that Jesus would be seen as Divine.

How could Christians pretend this council never took place?
Why would a Christian see Jesus as Divine, when the ORIGINAL scriptures and followers, saw him as merely a Prophet?

Added:
rndyh77 = the scriptures that exist now are the result of the COUNCIL! they have changed many things to suit themselves, and left out many details. How can you blindly follow these man made scriptures? (scriptures were revealed from God but man changed them)

Christians live in a sad state of denial! Everyone knows that this council CHANGED the Bible. I guess its just easier to believe that they were not changed!

Seek the truth people, dont live a life of ignorance

Answer 1

look deeper into the history of Christianity and you'll see that NON of the real apostles of Jesus lived to write anything, and it was word of mouth, actually they guy responsible for most of the Biblical Jesus stories, didn’t even know anything about his resurrection, and he actual thought that Jesus died in heaven, (im not jk, look up biblical history, its all there) actually most things about Jesus are just stories, "word of mouth", about a guy who lived 70 to 90 years before the gospels were written, actual there is even evidence that puts Jesus life way before we all are believe, like 500 years. Please don’t think im a flamer or lire, learn history and you’ll find all this out, look further back, into the actual writing of the gospels, and you’ll find some startling facts.

It wasn’t until A.D. 325, at the Council of Nicea, convened by Roman emperor Constantine, that it was decided, by a vote, that Jesus was to be depicted as a god, not a mortal prophet. A year after this the Council of Nicea, Constantine ordered all works that challenged the official orthodox teaching to be destroyed. In A.D. 331, he commissioned and financed new copies of the Bible. It was at this point that crucial alterations were made, and the new status of Jesus was fabricated. Constantine never converted to Christianity. He was actually baptized when he was on his deathbed, completely unaware.

Answer 2

With serious respect, you must have done your research in the book The Davinci Code. Whether you're a Christian or not, you must know that the New Testament is replete with references of Jesus' divinity. Mark 8:27-29 and 14:61-64 is only two of many references. And the book of Mark is believed to have been written between 15-20 years after the life of Christ with a surviving manuscript dated between 1st and 2nd century A.D. I suggest that you research the Apostles' Creed which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Anyway, I'm not trying to be abrasive and I don't know the sincerity of your question, but truthfully, the evidence is overwhelming, the Council of Nicaea did not even bring into discussion or vote whether they should accept the divinity of Christ. And by the way, the non-Christian source of encyclopedia Britannica 2007 states that the "council condemned Arianism", which it goes on to state was a "Christian heresy that declared that Christ is not truly divine but a created being." Just one of many sources.

Answer 3

Be assured that the scriptures that we have are just fine. God, in His infinite power and wisdom preserved all that we need to come to know Him in spite of the machinations of men. Even if we did not have the "New" Testament, God could lead us to salvation thru the "Old": 2 Timothy 3:14-17, the scriptures mentioned here are not the New Testament as it did not yet exist.

The orginal writers, viewed Yashua as the Son of God, a Being that had given up His Divinity to become human, pay special attention to verse 6 below:

Phillipians 2:5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ASV)

In addition, we have the proof that Yashua was Divine from Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

There are more scriptures, but I think if you honestly study you will see this truth.

A couple other things about the Council of Nicea. It was not a "compromise" as one person stated, but a wholesale hijacking of the Church of God from it's original foundation.

Historically, the Emperor Constantine was a worshiper of the Sun god Mithra. At the Council of Nicea in 324 or 325 AD he decreed that the "christian" religion would celebrate the birth of the Son of God on the day of the birth of his sun god. This is easily verified by a google search on the above topics.

The Messiah and the Apostles and all the original Church of God kept the 7th Day Sabbath (Our Saturday) as the correct day of worship.

Christmas is not the day of Christ's birth. It is a day legislated by a pagan Roman Emperor and perpetuated by his successors, The Popes of the Roman Catholic Church.
The actual date of Yashua's birth was probably closer to the time in late summer/early fall when the fall Holy Days began (Rosh Hoshanna, Yom Kippur, Feast of Tabernacles).
The Bible is not specific about the date of Christ's birth,
( although there are hints, see Fredrick Coulter) nor is there any command or hint that we should celebrate that day. (Do a study on Saturnalia)

Yashua and the Apostles and all the original Chruch of God kept the Holy Days specified by God in the Torah, not pagan days.

It is incumbent on Christians today to sift thru all these false traditions of men and ungodly councils and practices that have brought total religious confusion to and caused a departure from the faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 1:3)

Answer 4

not to be rude, but lets say the bible was changed. Lets see what would have to have been done.

1. this person would have had to track down some 5000 manuscripts or portions there of and change them all (don't let inkwork show!!) and return them before anyone noticed. Also, make same changes.

2. Track down all of the translations in other languages (egyptian, coptic, latin, etc.) (these were in the 1 century alone) change them to match the other lies in the greek manuscripts, and return those (don't let inkwork show).

3. finally, if you manage to do that. find all the writtings of the early church fathers and change those to match the other lies (the church fathers had a habbit of quoting the new testament, so much so, that if that was all we had, we could compile about 80% of the new testament). return those (don't let inkwork show). By the way, don't die before all that is done.

The scriptures are a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye wittnesses, during the lifetime of other eye wittnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fullfilment of "specific" prophecies, and claim to be devine rather than human in origin.

Answer 5

You are RIGHT! I am a Christian, and I hate that this council ever took place. It was a council that resulted in great, great compromise! The bible is very, very clear: There is one God, and one mediator between God and mankind, the MAN Christ Jesus (Hebrews 2:8 and 9).

The only way that Jesus differed from you and I is that He never sinned during His entire life. And that one pure life counted for all of our failings and most base sin. And the bible says that it pleased God to place all of the sins of mankind on Christ and for his death to count ONCE FOR ALL. That's a loving God to forgive us by the actions of His son. And Jesus is a very loving man. He's who we're supposed to aspire to be like. He was more than a prophet, He was the sinless sacrifice for a sin-filled world. And yes, He was also a prophet. But the Torah (Bible, old testament clearly called Him both things, not just prophet).

But you are right, many of the early followers were still in the process of learning who Jesus was. In fact, on the night of His betrayal, that's why Jesus took the unleavened bread at the Passover seder meal and said, "This is my body, which is broken FOR YOU, take it and eat it in remembrance of me. And then He took the cup of Redemption and said "This cup is my blood which is poured out for you in the new covenant. Do this in remembrance of me for whenever you do eat of this bread and drink of this cup you portray the Lord's death until He comes again!"

But you are right! He was just a man. But more than just ANY man. Because He finished the work He was supposed to do. He never, never sinned. And our elder brother, Jesus, a man, brought back the whole household of mankind to honor and fellowship with their Father by the life He led. He put all things under His name, and His life counts for ours still today. So if we sin, as the bible says, "We have an advocate before the Father: Jesus Christ - the Righteous one"

Answer 6

You sound like a Muslim or a Jew.

I don't know what type of research you've done, but it has led you in the wrong direction.

All of the teachings of the pre-Nicea church are identical to what we believe about Christ today.

The main thing Nicea did was to confirm that Jesus Christ was co-eternal with the Father and with the Holy Spirit ... which merely confirms what was said in the 1st chapter of the gospel of St. John.

Nicea simply refuted the latest popular heresy on the matter, which you seem to want to revive.

Get thee behind me, Satan!

Answer 7

You are making the false assumption that Christians, in general, have a clue about the history of their early church. Wasn't this the same council that decided that Mary was a "virgin" in the modern sense of the word instead of the ancient meaning, "young woman"? If Christians REALLY knew the history of their church, a lot of them would probably cease to be Christians.

Answer 8

Your argument is false. Christ, as the scriptures teach, is the ONLY begotten of the father. No one else born into this world has had that relationship. He is not just a prophet, although he could be considered that too.

Answer 9

Carribean_girl - you've been deceived in your studies. It simply isn't true that the Divinity of Jesus was believed and taught before the Council of Nicea. Secondly, they did not change the Scriptures as you suggest. Since you believe the Scriptures were corrupted, perhaps hearing the words from the Church Fathers makes more sense. Here are from several on the Divinity of Christ, well before Nicea. A proof that it was indeed the belief of the Church prior to the Council.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and 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’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis

"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

No profession of being only a Prophet here!