The purpose of the council was [ supposedly] to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. But there was already a consensus about that between the most powerful factions. The first question on the agenda was The Arian question: The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation.
So my question: shouldn´t the nature of christ have been clear from the beginning? Doesn´t it show that the divinity of christ was declared POSTHUMOUSLY by men?
2007-08-15 06:59:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This
2007-08-15 06:59:56 · update #1
This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.
2007-08-15 07:00:30 · update #2
Reconstructing the life and teachings of Arius is problematic. Few of Arius' writings are extant. They were ordered to be burned by Constantine while Arius was still living, and any that survived that purge were later destroyed by his opponents. Those works which have survived are found in the works of churchmen who wrote after he had died and denounced him as a heretic.
Doesn´t it show political censure? The complete suppression of ideas?
2007-08-15 07:02:04 · update #3
This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son, a part of Christology, had been raised some 50 years before Arius, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in AD 269 for his agreement with those who had used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation of the Father and the Son.
2007-08-15 07:03:39 · update #4
Thanks for a very well informed question. I think it's pretty evident that the divinity of Jesus, amongst many other things, are simply constructs of political and social convenience. The early church needed to wrest power from the other major religions at the time, and Constantine needed a unifier to keep Rome intact. What they came up with between them was perfect: usurping older beliefs and traditions, they roped in the common people, gave them a whole new hero story around which to rally, gave them an enemy (pagans and heretics). It was beautiful politics.
2007-08-15 07:06:11 · answer #1 · answered by dead_elves 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately when Jesus died, alot of thing were unclear, and as time went by, things were questioned and had to be sorted out - hence the various councils declaring certain beliefs. In looking at any religious history, it is only when problems arise about theories and ideas that they get resolved, or well defined.
Even though the Council of NIcaea was held and their declaration made regarding divinity - homoiousian vs homoousian - it didn't resolve anything. There was still a very strong faction of those who believed as Arius did. It took years to "weed out" this belief in Jesus as a physical man.
Jesus really wasn't a prophet for that long a period of time, and I would imagine that it didn't matter to those around him if he was wholy divine or human. Officially, yes, the divinity of Jesus was declared by others later on. But maybe it doesn't matter all that much. He was charged by God to bring a message, he delivered it, and went back up to heaven.
2007-08-15 07:16:18 · answer #2 · answered by SisterSue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Precisely.
The DIVINITY of Yeshua Messiah [pbuh] /JC was VOTED UPON in the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD by men! And those who won the election --including the insertion of many pagan traditions and beliefs at the time-- became the official state religion sanctioned by Emperor Constantine to rule over the entire Roman Empire. That was the start of what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.
There can only be one TRUE GOD, the Heavenly Father, who has NO CO-EQUAL. And all the rest of us are merely God's creations and Children, including our Greatest Prophet and Master, Yeshua Messiah [pbuh] /JC, the Son of God.
Peace be with you!
2007-08-15 07:27:11 · answer #3 · answered by Arf Bee 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jesus' divinity was not established until Nicaea. The true Aryans are part of the Dragon bloodline. This explains their wishes for him to be just a creation. Jesus is in their family tree. They were related.
The bloodline carried/carries the right of kingship and the church/pope was trying to wrest that control and power away from the bloodline. The "gift" of kingship that Constantin supposedly "just gave" to the pope was fraud. The letter containing the gift was written in prose that did not exist until 200 years after it was supposedly written. A forgery. This is the continuance of banning Arius and all his future bloodline.
Nice catch, Tesseract.
2007-08-15 07:17:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I only recently did a lot of reading about this, and you're very correct.
The other thing people have to remember is that Jesus was a devout Jew, and he would have been blaspheming if he had said he was God. Which he never did actually say directly.
2007-08-15 07:07:35 · answer #5 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the fact remains in that this council which later became the catholic church...
created a false belief of salvation that has carried over since the 300s.
how many millions of people are not saved... but who think they are??
the council:
- CREATED the Trinity doctrine.... (Jesus & the apostles DID NOT endorse this belief.)
- CHANGED baptism.... from immersion (like the apostles used) to sprinkling
- CHANGED baptism from "in the name of JESUS" - to - "in the name of the father, son & holy ghost.
(these are titles of JESUS, not His name. titles have no power to remit sin.... only Jesus' Name can do that.)
the council was evil & twisted ... & God will take out His vengeance upon those who follow false doctrine.
it is to our benefit if we follow God's word as He & only HE has said.
2007-08-15 07:20:06 · answer #6 · answered by t d 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, it was already known that Jesus and God the Father were one. The Arians were heretics.
2007-08-15 07:06:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Actually yes I did know that.
2007-08-15 07:06:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jake S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋