Did the council of Nicea (in one way or another) create the ideal of Jesus?

Question

Please refer books or other sources to help guide my research. Thanks :-)

Answer 1

The Seven Councils.

The conciliar principle of deciding matters of doctrinal and disciplinary importance began with the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, where the Apostles met to decide whether Gentile converts should be subject to the Mosaic Law. (They were not!). With this Council in mind, and the various local councils which met at diverse parts of the Empire in the period prior to Nicea, the Church established an important principle: In council, the members of the Church, so to speak, can together claim an authority which individually none of them possess. The Seven Ecumenical Councils which met in the period from 325 to 787 performed two basic tasks: 1) They formulated the visible, ecclesiastical organization of the Church, setting the ranking of the Five Patriarchates; and 2) they defined, once and for all, the teachings of the Church on faith, formulating the basic dogmas concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Nicea I (325).

This Council condemned the heresy of Arianism, which had contended that the Son was inferior to the Father and was, in fact, created. The Fathers here declared that the Son is one in essence (homoousios) with the Father, and formulated the first part of what eventually became the Creed the Symbol of Faith. In addition, three great Sees were singled out Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (Canon 6), and the See of Jerusalem, although still subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, was given the next place in honor after Antioch (Canon 7).

Constantinople I (381).

This Council expanded the Nicene Creed, developing the teachings concerning the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father; Who, with the Father and Son, is worshipped and glorified..., against the heresy of the Pneumatomachi (Spiritsmashers) and the Macedonians (followers of Macedonius), who could not accept the Third Person of the Trinity as equal to the other Two. It was in this period that we see the activities of the great Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory Nazianzus (the Theologian), St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, as well as the great Alexandrian Father, St. Athanasius the Great. The First Council of Constantinople also decreed that Constantinople, the new capital, should hold the next place of honor after Rome, since it was now the New Rome (Canon 111).

Ephesus (431).

This Council met to discuss the heresy of the Nestorians, who could not accept that God and Man had been united in one Person, Christ, refusing to call the Virgin Mary, Theotokos (or Birthgiver of God). Supported primarily by St. Cyril of Alexandria, this Council affirmed that Mary was truly Theotokos, since, as the Evangelist had proclaimed, the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and the Virgin had borne a single and undivided Person Who is, at the same time, God and Man.

Chalcedon (451).

This Council met to discuss the heresy of the Monophysites who held that in Christ the human nature had been merged into the divine, so that there was, after the divine union, only one nature. The Bishops of this Council accepted the so-called Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great of Rome, which affirmed the belief that the one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, [is] truly God and truly man...acknowledged in two natures unconfused, unchanged, undivided and inseparable. In addition, the place of Constantinople after that of Rome was confirmed, as was that of Jerusalem in the fifth place of honor.

A tragic result of this Council (and that of Ephesus prior) was the splitting apart from the main body of a large group of Christians adhering to either the Nestorian or Monophysite view. The Nestorians were found basically in Persia and Mesopotamia, and were especially decimated by the Islamic and Turkish onslaughts, whereas the Monophysites were strong in Africa (Egypt and Ethiopia the present Coptic Church), Armenia, and India (the Jacobite Church).

Constantinople II (553).

This Council met to further reinterpret the decrees of Chalcedon, seeking to explain how the two natures of Christ unite to form a single person. It affirmed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one of the Holy Trinity, one and the same divine Person (hypostasis), Who has united personally (hypostatically) in Himself the two natures of God and Man, without fusing them together and without allowing their separation. Certain teachings of Origen, including his teaching concerning the pre-existence of the soul, among other things, were also expressly condemned.

Constantinople III (681).

This Council met to condemn the Monothelite heresy which held that in the union of the two natures in Christ, the human will was merged into the divine as one will, since the two natures were united into one person. The Council, however, held that if Christ has two natures, he also has two wills human and divine.

Nicea II (787).

This Council met to affirm the belief of the Orthodox that veneration of the Holy Icons was proper and necessary for a correct un

Answer 2

Yes. They basically threw out any books that were not as firm in the belief of Jesus' divinity.

Also, the priests discussed the Arian controversy, which is altogether different.

Answer 3

No. They just created the Trinity Myth.

Here are come of the competitors at that fiasco:

Monarchianism: A doctrine or theory current in the Christian Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD in several forms and having as a common principle a belief that God is a single person as well as a single being.

Modalistic Monarchianism: Monarchianism holding that Jesus Christ was not a distinct person of the Trinity but rather one of the three successive modes or manifestation of God. (also Sabellianism and Patripassianism)

Dynamic Monarchianism: The doctrine that Christ was a mere man who was made son of God by adoption (similar to Ebionite beliefs).

Monophysitism: The doctrine that the human and divine in the person of Jesus constitute only one nature.

Dyophysitism: The doctrine that full deity and full humanity existed in the person of Jesus as two natures.

Aryanism: Argued at Nicaea that Jesus was not God. They were banished and began converting barbarians. Soon after, Augustine gave the first definition of a "just war."

Athanasianism: The doctrine that the Son is of the same substance as the Father (though only two-fold, this was the forerunner of the Trinity).

Anomoean: (Arian extremist) The view that Jesus was created and therefore unlike God in essence.

Homoean: (Arian semi-extremist) The view that Jesus is like God, but Not in essence.

Homoiousian: The view that Jesus is like God in essence but not of the same substance.

Apollinarian: The view that in Jesus a perfect divine nature assumed an imperfect human body wherein the "Logos" replaced the human mind.

Monothelitism: The view that in Jesus there was one "will" though two natures.

Dyothelitism: The view that in Jesus there were two "wills" the human and the divine.

Nestorianism: The doctrine that a divine and a human personality were joined in Jesus Christ in perfect harmony (rejected the "Mother of God" idea).

Melchites: Came to Nicaea with a Trinity of Father, Mary, and Son. Later, the term meant supporters of the "Mother of God" idea.

Answer 4

No, all of the NT writings predate the the Council of Nicea.  There was much disagreement about the nature and substance of Jesus which was fought about there.

Answer 5

Mister Greek and Coptic has it covered quite well.

So why do I bother?

Answer 6

Chris read after me

14

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

15

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,

16

and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?

17

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18

Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

19

You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.

20

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

21

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

22

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

23

Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

24

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

25

And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?

26

For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Answer 7

No.

Jesus is God.  The "council of Nicea" didn't do anything.  The "council of Nicea" isn't God'd Word.  The Bible is God's Word, and the Bible was complete in 90 AD, so forget the "council of Nicea"

Answer 8

They were looking for that which would best allow them to gain control of those whom they wished to control.

Answer 9

No, that wasn't their purpose. Some very simple research will tell you what their purpose was.

Answer 10

No, they didn't create his ideals, they voted on what books were to be in the NT, when to celebrate certain holidays, and yes even Jesus' divinity.

My source: History of the bible and Christianity.

Answer 11

No.  Greek and Coptic Translator has done a great job of listing the issues addressed at Nicea.  You can Google this and find actual records kept by the bishops at the Council to find what was discussed and what was decided.  There are hundreds of documents concerning the man named Jesus that are dated much earlier than the Council of Nicea in 325.  They did NOT vote on what texts went into the NT, despite many, many rumors to the contrary.