To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (26442 ) 12/2/1998 9:32:00 PM From: Grainne Respond to of 108807
I accept that you don't have much patience, Freddy, but I don't understand why you call all information that you don't accept or are unaware of "junk". In the posts I wrote about the Council of Nicea, I quoted from many theologians and authors, some of them contemporary narratives, describing the violence, bloodshed, intimidation and order-keeping by soldiers at this event. I also discussed the influence of the Gnostic Christians, who professor of religion Elaine Pagels (a recognized authority) states brought a PAGAN concept, the Trinity, into Christianity. It is the concept of Trinity which was accepted at the Council of Nicea. Now it has been so long ago that I did forget why we started even discussing the Council--I believe you mentioned it because you didn't think I knew anything about it. I'm glad you did, because after the reading I have done I am really struck by how the multiple, discordant views of what Christian beliefs were, all ended up at this conference, to be hashed out under armed guard, until finally by force and intimidation, the concept of Trinity won out. I have said all alone that Christianity is a belief system that evolved over several centuries, and this proves me out. Remember, as a Jew Jesus actually had nothing to do with deciding what Christian beliefs were; all of this happened in the few hundred years after his death. I found yet another source on the web--the Christadelphians of Australia, a bible study group. They are citing here the Bible and Christian beliefs before the Council of Nicea and after, stating that the Trinity is NOT part of the Bible and came later. I am not sure why a curious person like yourself would consider all these ideas about church history bizarre, but I find them quite fascinating: The Apostles' Creed The Apostles' Creed is certainly an early statement of Christian doctrine. Its authorship and exact date is unknown, but Professor William Barclay traces it back to ‘not long after AD 100' (The Plain Man Looks at the Apostles' Creed, p 12). The creed simply says: ‘I believe in God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit . . . I believe in the Holy Spirit . . .' Neither the language nor the concepts of the Trinity are present anywhere in this creed. precision.simplenet.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Council of Nicea By the time of the Council of Nicea (AD 325), things had changed radically. That Council declared: We believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, Begotten of the Father, That is from the substance of the Father. He is God from God, Light from light, True God from true God, Begotten, not made, Of one substance with the Father ... And in the Holy Spirit.' The language of the Trinity is now very evident, although this creed is not as complex and detailed as later creeds. Because the creed has introduced ideas that are not in the Bible, inevitably it has begun to use language that is also not in the Bible, such as the statements that the Son of God is ‘from the substance of the Father' and ‘of one substance with the Father'.precision.simplenet.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Freddy, perhaps if you remind me what you think is significant about the Council of Nicea, it would help me understand our differences.