Does it bother Christians that a large chunk of current dogma was solidified 4 centuries after Jesus died?

Question

And that the council in which it happened was presided over by Constantine, who was unbaptized at the time?

Chiken, this is a serious question that does not violate TOS

Answer 1

The Christian answers you have received are terribly sad. They have no understanding whatsoever of their own religion...

Believe it or not, people, it DOES matter! Most churches out there teach what the Council decided would be "true" for the religion without any investigation, and it is also part of our culture. Before you say that people just need to read the Bible instead of listening to pastors/preachers (who can be WRONG since they're human like the rest of us - like pedophilia?), consider that your reading of the Bible will most likely be influenced by your preconceived notions of the "truth," obtained through early brainwashing and repeated exposure to non-Biblical ideas. This isn't just a matter of some guys from 1500-1600 years ago quibbling over terminology, though that took place as well. This is a matter of DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS in your religion! Do some research!

On top of THAT, many ideas of Satan and Hell (as two good examples) exist only because of Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno - two non-Biblical, FICTIONAL texts. But you probably don't care about this, either.

You also fail to realize how many of your doctrines and traditions come cultures and religions that existed BEFORE Jesus was born, before Christianity even existed.

Christianity today is a JOKE at best.

Edit:
seminary bum's statements don't change a thing (though I'm not sure which side was being argued). Doctrines DECIDED by mortals? The books of the Bible DECIDED by mortals? This is what people listen to, trusting their forerunners to be correct in all matters because they were "probably inspired by God." Milton also said he was inspired by God, but that's not part of the Bible. I could also say I was inspired by God to bring you people this message for your own salvation, but you'd ignore me.

Edit:
Father K: So of course, Bishops can do no wrong and can never at all stray from what is correct and morally right. Right!

But let's take a step back from this major issue to consider a smaller one. Why do you think there are so many different denominations, as well as the division between Protestants and Catholics? If God's Word is so clear and important, why is it that it is so open to interpretation? As soon as you interpret one thing, you must consider that the rest could be interpreted as well. If you're an absolute fundamentalist, there's no need to even be having a conversation because you are completely blind to all knowledge.

Anyway, if high-ranking church leaders are guided by the "Holy Spirit," why are there so many different translations and understandings of it? Is it human folly? Then I point to the Council and say, "Human folly!"

Last edit before I look into other questions: There was more than one Council, and as someone else pointed out, much of religious doctrine was already decided by people before then. It was still decided by PEOPLE, as it seems to be today. What a surprise.

Answer 2

Not really because much of what was collected at the Nicene Council was already a part of church doctrine up until that time. It had just never been formally stated before that because there was not a lot of need to do so. Constantine wanted to get the straight up answer about Christianity and so he forced them to come to a conclusion.

In fact, the emergence of orthodoxy is much earlier than that. Clearly by the time of Irenaeus we have a solidified set of beliefs that distinguish orthodoxy from heresy. Moreover, creedal formulas can even be seen in the writings of the New Testament which indicate that from the earliest days there was a litmus test about what was orthodox and what was not.

Answer 3

Not particularly, for the same reasons as Father K.

Christianity is a revealed religion, which according to the American heritage dictionary is a religion "founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind."

Although the canon of scripture is the Bible, the bible is not self-explaining in all ways. Therefore we have ecumenical councils to clarify the position of the church in the world, and the relationship of the church to the world.

Much of what people attribute to the council of Nicaea is grossly exaggerated, usually to suit the agenda of someone trying to make some sort of point about the ominous... I dunno... pagans, Greeks, Romans, or something... who can ever tell?

The council of Nicaea really only settled one important doctrinal question - was Arius the presbyter right, or Athanasius the bishop?

Arius proposed that Jesus was a kind of lesser deity, a created "junior deity" who nonetheless preceded creation proper (even Arius was mindful of John's opening words.)

Athanasius proposed that Jesus was a co-eternal member of the Godhead, begotten in a timeless eternal way, and not a created being.

The council voted, Athanasius won. Legend tells that the historical Santa Claus (or rather St. Nicholas) slapped Arius across the face at the council.

Constantine's role is again ominously exaggerated, mostly by those with an agenda to... er... whatever with those Romans and Greeks again. Be ominous or whatnot.

He made a suggestion in the wording of the creed, and it held. Not because he suggested but because the bishops voted on it, as they have at every ecumenical council since for 1600 years. What is studied and is voted a thumbs up becomes part of the council declaration.

Answer 4

Which year was it that Constantine was baptised by the Holy Spirit? Can you tell me that? Because if you are referring to water baptism, well I didn't get water baptised until about my 18th year. So no big deal to me.

But no, I do not think any less of the Bible because it was then in the 4th century where it was gathered. The epistles and parts of the Bible were around before that, and I know that many of those are in the possession of museums and societies around the world.

Answer 5

While Constantine presided over the first council of Nicea -- convened to re-establish religious peace and civil order -- he avoided any direct interference with dogma. He was a catechumen all of his life, seeking baptism from the bishops he had supported only just before his death. Source: Eusebius.

And no, it doesn't bother me.

Answer 6

Yes, it does which is why we continually have to go straight to the Bible and question traditions that are not biblical.

Constantine, used it as a political tool to control the masses.

this occurred approx 400 years after Jesus died thereabouts?

Answer 7

The First Ecumenical Council was called by Constantine, but was presided over by Bishops, who are members of the Body of Christ, and who are guided by the Holy Spirit when the Church (the Body of Christ on earth) meets in Ecumenical Council.

So - no - it does not bother me in the least.

Answer 8

Isn't evaluating the Christian traditions of the Anglican Church to the Pagan traditions of the 4th century a little unfair? Claiming the English phrase "Easter" proves teh get together of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is Pagan could also be unfair whilst practically no different language on the earth makes use of it, principally the ones languages used within the 4th century. The English phrase "Easter" pertains to Estre, a Teutonic (German) goddess of the emerging gentle of day and spring. No one turns out to grasp why this English phrase was once used for the get together of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The nice banquet of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was once celebrated lengthy earlier than the unchristian English phrase "Easter" was once first used. And the get together of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is straight involving the Jewish banquet of Passover going again to approximately three,000 B.C.E. Most different languages use the Jewish/Christian phrase for "Passover" for the nice get together of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ that English audio system name "Easter." The Greek time period for "Passover" is Páskha. It is the Aramaic kind of the Hebrew pesach (which means passover). Other languages: Afrikaans: Paasfees Albanian: Pashkët Breton: Pask Seder Catalan: Pasqua Chamorro: Pasgua Cornish: Pask Danish: Påske or Paaske Dutch: Pasen or Paschen Esperanto: Paskon Finnish: Pääsiäistä French: Pâques Galician: Pascuas Icelandic: Páska Indonesian: Paskah Italian: Pasqua Jèrriais: Pâques Latin: Pascha Norwegian: Påske Portuguese: Páscoa Scottish: Pask Sicilian: Pasqua Spanish: Pascuas Swahili: Pasaka Swedish: Påsk Welsh: Pasg Even within the German provinces of the Lower Rhine in which the Teutonic goddess Estre had its origins, the folks name the banquet Paisken now not Ostern. With love in Christ.

Answer 9

I would venture to guess that most Christians don't know that fact.

I would further venture to guess that the ones that do would say that there was devine intervention and "God's Hand" once again truly presided over the Pagan Constantine.

Answer 10

No, it doesn't bother me at all. Why would it? Are you saying that in 400 years some of Jesus' original message could have changed somehow from being translated repeatedly over time? That is a silly idea. And Constantine? I saw that movie bro, it was sick. Keanu was like, "I'm Constantine the last of the god-warriors! Go back to hell demon-folk!" and then they did. That's how the Bible came to be what is today.

Fin.