Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Council of Nicea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

    Not the same person. St. Nicholas lived in the 3rd/4th century, long after Revelation was written.
    Never seen Bibleuser care about context, so this isn't surprising.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Never seen Bibleuser care about context, so this isn't surprising.
      You seen the Principle though do you not??
      BU

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

        Not the same person. St. Nicholas lived in the 3rd/4th century, long after Revelation was written.
        Sect of Santa!!
        BU

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
          Sect of Santa!!
          BU
          Don't forget that if you move the 'n' that Santa becomes Satan!!!

          and that N stands for Nicholaus!

          666!!! <-- Santa has 8 reindeer in two rows. 8 x 4 is 32. 3 x 2 is 6! the reindeer are a TEAM. Team sounds like 'teen.' So 8 teen = 18. 18/3=6. 6+6+6=18. 666!!!
          Last edited by Sparko; 01-04-2018, 01:10 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
            Sect of Santa!!
            BU
            The concept of Santa Claus is about a century and a half old, so much, much more recent than St. Nicholas. Further, there is nearly no overlap between the two; even the sole similarity (giving gifts) is conceptually very different. St. Nicholas is remembered for secretly giving dowries for girls who would otherwise have been sold into slavery due to penury, which is nothing like giving gifts to children because they've been good.

            By all means, keep showing your extreme ignorance.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
              You seen the Principle though do you not??
              BU
              No, because there is no connection between St. Nicholas, and the Nicolaitians of Revelation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                The concept of Santa Claus is about a century and a half old, so much, much more recent than St. Nicholas. Further, there is nearly no overlap between the two; even the sole similarity (giving gifts) is conceptually very different. St. Nicholas is remembered for secretly giving dowries for girls who would otherwise have been sold into slavery due to penury, which is nothing like giving gifts to children because they've been good.

                By all means, keep showing your extreme ignorance.
                MMMMMMMMMMMM ...........

                "The New York elite succeeded in domesticating Christmas through a new "Santa Claus" tradition invented by Washington Irving, John Pintard and Clement Clarke Moore. Moore's poem was printed in four new almanacs in 1824, just one year after it was in the Troy, New York, paper. The poem and other descriptions of the Santa Claus ritual appeared in more and more local papers. More than anything else, "A Visit From St. Nicholas" introduced the custom of a cozy, domestic Santa Christmas tradition to the nation.

                Other artists and writers continued the change to an elf-like St. Nicholas, "Sancte Claus," or "Santa Claus," unlike the stately European bishop. In 1863, during the Civil War, political cartoonist Thomas Nast began a series of annual black-and-white drawings in Harper's Weekly, based on the descriptions found in the poem and Washington Irving's work. These drawings established a rotund Santa with flowing beard, fur garments, and an omnipresent clay pipe. Nast's Santa supported the Union and President Lincoln believed this contributed to the Union troops' success by demoralizing Confederate soldiers. As Nast drew Santas until 1886, his work had considerable influence in forming the American Santa Claus. Along with appearance changes, the saint's name shifted to Santa Claus—a natural phonetic alteration from the German Sankt Niklaus.

                Churches, influenced by German immigrants who loved Christmas, Clement Clarke Moore, Washington Irving, Charles Dickens, the Oxford Movement in the Anglican church, and church musicians embracing carol singing, began to bring Christmas observances into their lives. The growth of Sunday Schools in cities exposed hundreds of thousands of children to Christianity. Initially oopposed to Christmas observance, by the 1850s Sunday Schools had discovered that a Christmas tree, Santa and gifts, greatly improved attendance. So, in a strange twist of fate, the new "secular" Santa Claus, no longer seen as a religious figure, helped return Christmas observance to churches."-http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/origin-of-santa/
                BU

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
                  MMMMMMMMMMMM ...........

                  "The New York elite succeeded in domesticating Christmas through a new "Santa Claus" tradition invented by Washington Irving, John Pintard and Clement Clarke Moore. Moore's poem was printed in four new almanacs in 1824, just one year after it was in the Troy, New York, paper. The poem and other descriptions of the Santa Claus ritual appeared in more and more local papers. More than anything else, "A Visit From St. Nicholas" introduced the custom of a cozy, domestic Santa Christmas tradition to the nation.

                  Other artists and writers continued the change to an elf-like St. Nicholas, "Sancte Claus," or "Santa Claus," unlike the stately European bishop. In 1863, during the Civil War, political cartoonist Thomas Nast began a series of annual black-and-white drawings in Harper's Weekly, based on the descriptions found in the poem and Washington Irving's work. These drawings established a rotund Santa with flowing beard, fur garments, and an omnipresent clay pipe. Nast's Santa supported the Union and President Lincoln believed this contributed to the Union troops' success by demoralizing Confederate soldiers. As Nast drew Santas until 1886, his work had considerable influence in forming the American Santa Claus. Along with appearance changes, the saint's name shifted to Santa Claus—a natural phonetic alteration from the German Sankt Niklaus.

                  Churches, influenced by German immigrants who loved Christmas, Clement Clarke Moore, Washington Irving, Charles Dickens, the Oxford Movement in the Anglican church, and church musicians embracing carol singing, began to bring Christmas observances into their lives. The growth of Sunday Schools in cities exposed hundreds of thousands of children to Christianity. Initially oopposed to Christmas observance, by the 1850s Sunday Schools had discovered that a Christmas tree, Santa and gifts, greatly improved attendance. So, in a strange twist of fate, the new "secular" Santa Claus, no longer seen as a religious figure, helped return Christmas observance to churches."-http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/origin-of-santa/
                  BU
                  Oh, TWO centuries, not a century and a half. You do realize that what you posted mostly confirms my post, yes? Santa Claus is pretty much entirely irrelevant to the historical figure of St. Nicholas.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Oh, TWO centuries, not a century and a half. You do realize that what you posted mostly confirms my post, yes? Santa Claus is pretty much entirely irrelevant to the historical figure of St. Nicholas.
                    I don't think he will notice. BU seems very good at only taking in selective information that meets his beliefs and ignoring anything that questions them. Usually this is because of fear. They are afraid to question or test their beliefs because it might upset their whole worldview. So, armed with cult literature and propaganda they just routinely spout the party line and ignore anything that questions it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                      I keep getting told bunk stuff about Constantine and the church, what really happened?
                      It produced 20 authentic canons. It should not be confused with Nicea II in 787, which is also Ecumenical. Canons here:https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html

                      It was presided over by Ossius (or Hosius), bishop of Cordova; the bishop of Rome, Silvester, was represented by the priests Vitalis and Vincent. Two of the bishops were sons of St Gregory the Illuminator, the Apostle of Arnenia, which was not part of the Roman Empire. This is significant because of the idea that Constantine the Great paganised the Church - he was in no position to do that to a (Christian) kingdom that was no part of the Roman Empire. Yet, despite being outside the Roman Empire, Armenian bishops were in communion with the catholic Church inside the Roman Empire.

                      The traditional number of bishops attending is 318 - the true number may be as low as 250. References to “the Council of the 318 Fathers” are references to Nicea I. Somewhat confusingly, it is called the Council of Nice in older English discussions; reasonably enough, seeing as the city in France has the same name as the city where the Council of 325 was held.

                      The sixth canon is of interest, because an interpolated version of it was used to bolster the Roman claims to primacy of jurisdiction.

                      Canon 10 is relevant to the Donatist schism in North Africa.

                      Nicea I is mainly remembered for adopting the word “homoousion” into its Creed. This was remarkable, and controversial, for two reasons:

                      1. the word had been used in an heretical sense by Paul, bishop of Samosata, in the early 270s.

                      2. It does not occur in the Bible.

                      This is also the Council at which St Nicholas of Myra is said to have clouted Arius.

                      The Council is also remembered for its handling of the discipline regarding clerical continence. Fuller details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paphnutius_of_Thebes
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 12-04-2019, 11:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
                        You seen the Principle though do you not??
                        BU
                        Of course. Both St. Nicholas and the Nicolaitans of Revelation share the first three letters in their names. And if that isn't enough to establish a firm connection, then I don't know what is.

                        Sort of like Hitler and the Hittites.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Constantine was the first Christian Roman emperor. His goal in calling the Council of Nicaea was church unity. He seems to have proposed the term homoousios ("of the same nature") to describe the relationship of the Father to the Son at the council, though he wasn't the first to use it. As can be seen by the fact that he was baptized by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicodemia) on his deathbed, he actually wasn't a stickler for doctrinal purity; he just wanted everyone to get along. Although he gave lots of money to the church, he did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire (Theodosius II did that a century later).
                          Constantine's concerns were not about wanting " everyone to get along". He wanted to bring some orthodoxy to the religion to thereby bring about cohesion and political stability. The latter was his primary concern given the recent history of the empire.

                          Christianity became the state religion of the empire in 380 CE under Theodosius I some 43 years after Constantine's death.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            Constantine's concerns were not about wanting " everyone to get along". He wanted to bring some orthodoxy to the religion to thereby bring about cohesion and political stability. The latter was his primary concern given the recent history of the empire.
                            It seems to me that everybody getting along would do a bang-up job of achieving cohesion and political stability.
                            Christianity became the state religion of the empire in 380 CE under Theodosius I some 43 years after Constantine's death.
                            Sort of. The Edict of Thessalonica wasn't really enforced until the Code of Theodosius II was published in 438. Pagans weren't even banned from state office until 415.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              It seems to me that everybody getting along would do a bang-up job of achieving cohesion and political stability.
                              Purely as a matter of interest do you know anything about the history of the Empire and of Christianity from the third century CE and through the succeeding three centuries?

                              Furthermore, as history has shown Nicaea did not achieve its aim given that, “ people ” i.e. the Christians [and in particular their leading prelates] were some considerable way from “getting along” with one another on doctrinal matters. Divisions, dissent, and often violent conflicts, continued between the Homoians and those of the Nicene persuasion.

                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Sort of.
                              There is no "sort of" about it. The Nicene creed became the state religious belief. Implementation of that belief is another matter and again, some understanding of the situation prevailing at the time is required.

                              Nor should the complexity and fluidity of that period be overlooked. Likewise the internecine struggles between the prelates of Constantinople, Rome, Milan, and Alexandria, for temporal power and supremacy, have to be taken into consideration.

                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              The Edict of Thessalonica wasn't really enforced until the Code of Theodosius II
                              That is another over-simplified and sweeping generalisation. The Codex Theodosianus was an attempt to codify Roman law in general and was undertaken when a commission of legal officers, under the presidency of the praetorian prefect and former quaestor, Antiochus, was instructed to collect all extant edicts and general laws issued since. 312 CE. The commissioners were not overly successful in recovering the legislation of the first half-century of the period, and found great difficulty in assigning dates to the early laws. However, after two years work they produced the Codex Theodosianus, which in 438 CE was declared in both halves of the empire to constitute an authoritative and exhaustive collection of imperial legislation since 312 CE.

                              Concerning non-Christians the proscriptions began to take effect within a relatively short time. In 391, an enactment strictly forbade public officials from any participation in sacrifice on penalty of a fine of fifteen pounds of gold. Theodosius I also added an additional penalty to the professional staff of any official doing so. Namely that they too would also be fined the same amount unless they could demonstrate that they had resisted and opposed the official’s actions.

                              That law was followed in 391 and 392 by a series of increasingly general prohibitions. By 392, the following general edict went to the praetorian
                              prefect Rufinus. This stated that:

                              No one at all, of any family or rank, in office or out of office, powerful by birth or born in a low condition, in no place at all, in no city, is to slaughter a victim before senseless graven images or venerate the lares with fire by lighting candles, the genius with wine and libations, the penates with sweet smelling garlands.

                              One of the last known surviving members of a traditional Roman priesthood is Albinus but it is noted that the old offices died out remarkably quickly after 391. By 400 all of these had vanished.

                              The implementation of such a law indicates that there must have been something to forbid and while it remained extremely unlikely that such a law could be universally or consistently applied right across the entire empire; it might be suggested that the major impact of such proscriptions was, most likely, on the behaviour of civil servants and those holding various offices. Furthermore, by renouncing the traditional religions and joining the new “club” of Christianity a citizen could improve his career prospects.

                              [See: A H M Jones The Later Roman Empire 284-602, Vol. 1; Hans Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church Vol. 4; Charles Freeman A New History of Early Christianity; James O’Donnell Pagans:The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity]

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-New-Testament

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 07-31-2020, 09:36 AM
                                65 responses
                                2,664 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X