Jump to content


Photo

The Council Of Nicea


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

Moving this out of private chat because I think that this is a topic best held in the open for others to learn from:

You do realize that the muslims do use that exact same complaint against christianity, right?
"The main problem I see with Islam is the severe lack of historical support and ignorance of historical evidence surrounding such assertions."
They do at least have a point in that the Bible's new testament has been revised, edited, or purposefully shaped in some way or another at around the time of the council of Nicea at around 325 AD.

I am not sure of this claim, but Muslims say that their Quran has not had a single dot changed since it was originally written. To their credit, the Quran has not been translated over and over again, as there is such a thing as 'lost in translation'.


I have seen a picture somewhere saying something like this:
"Christians say Muslims are wrong.
Muslims say Christians are wrong.
Atheists sy they are both right."
That would more or less sum my position on organized religion :)


This is why I told you to read the book "More Than A Carpenter. Most of your questions and contentions would have been answered by it.

Exhibit A:

There are cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, etc.) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism [see page 45] which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church."
The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

http://carm.org/earl...nitarian-quotes


Yes, you are probably correct that the Quran has been well preserved since it has been written (600 years after Jesus died) , but in that well preserved writing, Muhammad attempts to rewrite the history concerning Jesus that is easily disproved by historical documents dating before the Quran was written. Nice try Mohammad.

Finally I address your stance that the Bible could have been changed over time by a "telephone game" over the years. This is impossible.


(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.
http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm


And I don't know how current that is, because new documents are found once every few months.

Your are correct, there are many different translations of the Bible but ALL of them go back to the oldest available historical manuscripts to make their translations. Different teams translate in different ways, ranging from strict literal to though-for-thought (to attempt to make it easier to understand). I prefer a literal translation and regularly look up the original Greek or Hebrew for clarity through Strong's concordance. No corruption to be found.

Edit: I stand corrected concerning the historical accuracy of the Quran:

So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Qur'an and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur'an (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Qur'anic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence (McDowell 1990:43-55), most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) (McDowell 1972:39-49), Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century (Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6). If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Qur'an, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur'an was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur'an.

Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliest letters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we have in our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been unduly added to or tampered with, the Qur'anic material which we have in our possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to second century Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some cases who wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they were written; and that none of them were from a divine source, as they were written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the intervening centuries after the Bible had been canonized.
http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm

Read more about the Quran's document evidence: http://debate.org.uk...-qur/qurdoc.htm



#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:01 AM

Who were you talking to here?

#3 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

Who were you talking to here?


Alex.

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:34 AM

I appreciate the post brother. See that Jehovah's Witnesses? The early church fathers accepted the Trinity before the council of Nicea. The council of Nicea was called in order to stamp out apostate sects that were teaching a different Jesus. 2 Corinthians 11:4.

You Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Bible Students, Mormons, Kingdom Christians, Agnostics... you had better know who Jesus is. You had better be 100% sure....

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins.” --John 8:24

Why did the early Christians die rather than deny their eyewitness account of Jesus' resurrection? Why does Hebrews 1 and 2 testify that Jesus is not an angel? Why is Jesus name above every name and the name by which to attain salvation? (Acts, Philippians)

You had better be 100% sure. You had better look at the evidence yourself rather than relying on someone else to do it for you. Philippians 2:12

#5 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 02:52 PM

I appreciate the post brother. See that Jehovah's Witnesses? The early church fathers accepted the Trinity before the council of Nicea. The council of Nicea was called in order to stamp out apostate sects that were teaching a different Jesus. 2 Corinthians 11:4.

You Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Bible Students, Mormons, Kingdom Christians, Agnostics... you had better know who Jesus is. You had better be 100% sure....

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins.” --John 8:24

Why did the early Christians die rather than deny their eyewitness account of Jesus' resurrection? Why does Hebrews 1 and 2 testify that Jesus is not an angel? Why is Jesus name above every name and the name by which to attain salvation? (Acts, Philippians)

You had better be 100% sure. You had better look at the evidence yourself rather than relying on someone else to do it for you. Philippians 2:12

Ouch. :(

SDA does not deny the trinity nor the divinity of Jesus. SDA does not make Jesus less by thinking he is Micheal. You can be a leader and not belong to the group you lead. God leads us and we are not gods. JW make Jesus less because they don't believe he is God but this is not the case with SDA, just wanted to clear this up. Arch Angel simply means leader of the angels or commander, and the title angel simply means messenger. So it all depends how you think about it. If you deny the divinity of Jesus you will be lost but I see no danger in thinking Jesus is Melchizedek or Micheal because he fits the mold.

1 Thessalonians 4:16

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Note it says "archangel" (sigular) we have no good reason to think there are more than one archangel. There are only two times in the Bible that the title archangel is used and it is always singular. In the quote mentioned and in Jude when Micheal contends with Satan for Moses's body. We have to see that Micheal is no longer active after Jesus comes but angels like Gabriel still are as we see in Luke 1:19. Jesus being Micheal is debatable at least. I repeat SDA does NOT make Jesus less than what he is which is 100% God and 100% man. He is the verb made flesh. Thinking he is the leader of the angels does NOT necessarily make him less than he has to be in anyway. It depends with the person, like JW they want to make Jesus less.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users