How nice was Nicea?

In the Christian tradition in which I grew up the victory of Constantine was seen as a victory for the Christian Church. The subsequent council in 325 AD and the subsequent Christianization of the Roman empire around one enforced orthodox dogma (e.g.the Nicene Creed) is seen as the will of God.
The Bible as we know it today, was largely a result of all of this. It did not all happen overnight of course, it was the result of a long and often bloody battle for who would define the faith, and who would be called a heritic. Even after the reformation, the existing bible was still held to be the sacred word of God rather than the result of Constantine's victory and subsequent campaign by the Bishops to unite all of Christendom under one orthodox holy catholic faith. Today, the vast majority of Christian denominations still define their faith largely as it was defined by what emanated from that turning point in the history of the Roman empire.

I am curious as to how others view this.

Do you agree with this Christian paradigm?
Do you see Constantine's victory and subsequent events as a victory of Christ over Rome, or perhaps the beginning of a victory of Rome over control of the message of Jesus?
Why?

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by ketzer

I am curious as to how others view this.

Do you agree with this Christian paradigm?
Do you see Constantine's victory and subsequent events as a victory of Christ over Rome, or perhaps the beginning of a victory of Rome over control of the message of Jesus?
Why?

ketzer,

In regards to the Nicene Creed or any other creed, doctrine or dogma I believe that Matthew 15:8-9 gives the perspective of Jesus on any matter similar to this. I like the New Living Translation bible's rendering of vs. 9..."Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God."

The acceptance of any creed/doctrine is the lazy man's way out. By accepting the belief of others you are giving up your freedom(and I would say your obligation) to determine the truth for yourself.

Perhaps there was no intention in this ruling to empower Rome(or any other state, party, or government) but it helped to validate the rights of others to transfer their beliefs to others in what appeared to be a sanctioned way.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

ketzer,

In regards to the Nicene Creed or any other creed, doctrine or dogma I believe that Matthew 15:8-9 gives the perspective of Jesus on any matter similar to this. I like the New Living Translation bible's rendering of vs. 9..."Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God."

The acceptance of any creed/doctrine is the lazy man's way out. By accepting the belief of others you are giving up your freedom(and I would say your obligation) to determine the truth for yourself.

Perhaps there was no intention in this ruling to empower Rome(or any other state, party, or government) but it helped to validate the rights of others to transfer their beliefs to others in what appeared to be a sanctioned way.

' Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'


So true


But they didn't ensnare us all

The best way to hide the truth is to be the one to tell his-story

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

The best way to hide the truth is to be the one to tell his-story

MAYA EL,

Perfect !!! Short, succinct and true. Hope that I can remember it... his story...

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by Molearner

ketzer,

In regards to the Nicene Creed or any other creed, doctrine or dogma I believe that Matthew 15:8-9 gives the perspective of Jesus on any matter similar to this. I like the New Living Translation bible's rendering of vs. 9..."Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God."

The acceptance of any creed/doctrine is the lazy man's way out. By accepting the belief of others you are giving up your freedom(and I would say your obligation) to determine the truth for yourself.

Perhaps there was no intention in this ruling to empower Rome(or any other state, party, or government) but it helped to validate the rights of others to transfer their beliefs to others in what appeared to be a sanctioned way.

When Jesus spoke with pharisees, most of the time He used their scriptures, even citing that God said a certain thing, to show how hypocrites they are, but when He spoke with the masses, He had a different approach, teaching His way... If you look at the Matthew 15:3, He cites an old testament law ( given by Yahweh ), even saying that God gave that law, but when He talked with the masses, for example, talking about the "law eye for eye and tooth for tooth", He said nothing about God giving that law, which is really really interesting.

What is your opinion?

[sky]

Double Post...

[sky]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

When Jesus spoke with pharisees, most of the time He used their scriptures, even citing that God said a certain thing, to show how hypocrites they are, but when He spoke with the masses, He had a different approach, teaching His way... If you look at the Matthew 15:3, He cites an old testament law ( given by Yahweh ), even saying that God gave that law, but when He talked with the masses, for example, talking about the "law eye for eye and tooth for tooth", He said nothing about God giving that law, which is really really interesting.

What is your opinion?

"law eye for eye and tooth for tooth", is an very Ancient law, probably Babylonian... Also used by the Roman's and Islamic Laws..... It was used as an excuse for retaliation or a compensating measure of justice. Maybe that's why Jesus never mentioned that the law came from God...

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

When Jesus spoke with pharisees, most of the time He used their scriptures, even citing that God said a certain thing, to show how hypocrites they are, but when He spoke with the masses, He had a different approach, teaching His way... If you look at the Matthew 15:3, He cites an old testament law ( given by Yahweh ), even saying that God gave that law, but when He talked with the masses, for example, talking about the "law eye for eye and tooth for tooth", He said nothing about God giving that law, which is really really interesting.

What is your opinion?

ThatMan,

Yes, Jesus had a different way and was teaching his way. His mission was to expand teachings to be inclusive to all people not just limited focus groups. Very recently on a different thread I responded to an observation by a poster that agape love was noted in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Here was my response to the question and I think that perhaps it might indirectly answer your question:

"This is a huge mistake that 'Christians' make....believing that the New and Old Testaments are in agreement. The key to understanding this is Luke 10:29 when the question was asked of Jesus...."And who is my neighbor ?". Jesus redefined 'neighbor' with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Leviticus 19:18 also says love your neighbor as yourself but the immediately preceding verses indicate that 'neighbor' referred to 'your people' meaning exclusively the Jews or tribe if you will. Later Deuteronomy 23:1-8 goes into detail of those who should be excluded from fellowship with the Jews....'even down to the tenth generation'. All of these things indicate that the Old Testament upheld the concept of duality.....us vs. them, us separate from them, etc.

The questions rightly come up on these forums from non-believers concerning the violence of the Old Testament believing that Christians are in lock step with the Old Testament and they question Christians how to reconcile these paradoxes. This is one of the answers, of course, and it is that Jesus redefined 'neighbor'. If anything the Old Testament law was for the survival and self-preservation of the Jews so that they could provide the lineage for the birth of Jesus. But when Jesus came he actually strengthened the law so that it would include all peoples and tribes.....not just the Jews. Essentially He introduced the concept of non-duality. Sadly to this day many religions(including Christianity) revert to the concept of duality.....i.e. attempting to distinguish themselves from others and in doing this they are guilty of judging others. In short, they become hypocrites to the teachings of Christ whom they profess to honor."

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

What is your opinion?

ThatMan,

When you mention "an eye for an eye' a more direct answer to your query can be found in Matthew 5:38-45. This famously presents the teaching of Jesus "to turn the other cheek". It can be derived from this teaching that evil cannot be abolished by more evil......that fire is put out by water and not by more fire. It is an example that the Mosaic law was being replaced by a higher(and more logical) law by the teachings of Jesus.