Council of Nicaea
 

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Fir...-of-Nicaea-325

I am surprised you take this article's view on Arius. I firmly believe Arius had many of the 'right views' about Christ.

The same hold's true for Constantine. Constantine was no Angel but he did a lot to put ALL religions on equal footings.

Janielee,

Interesting that you posted this.....especially in light of what I posted about Boehme. I see the same principle at work here.....namely that the first Adam was both male and female. Here we are seeing that God and the Son are also both one. It is our dualistic urge to compel us to insist on separation IMO.

Trinity Doctrines, which came out of the Councils of Nicea, does not really claim "that God and the Son are also both one".

The idea that the first of creation was Jesus, before he became human, was done away with along with the idea that Jesus was the first of creation.

'And God said, “Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness… And God created Adam in God’s image, in the image of God, God created IT; male and female God created THEM '.


I have always seen God and The Son as one and the same .

I find it interesting, eye opening at the least, that a group of dudes came together and decided on what the doctrines and "real words" of Jesus/God were - and threw out other translations/words that didn't conform to their views at the time.

There is much to be admired in Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas, which I recently reviewed (but assume was never part of the doctrine approved by the dudes at the political Council), and I have no doubt that there are many Christians of spirit and faith, but it's ironic that the words of "God" for most - and the dominance of many Church's interpretation - is based on a small group of men at a political convention.

JL

Yes, and that would make things such as God's omnipresence, omniscience etc. sensible.

The Boehme article you quoted was very insightful. I suspect people cannot understand it without some knowledge (intimate, experiential, conscious) of God...so perhaps the modern day followers and mainstream interpretation is more of a Dummies version - which is great to start with, but the promises of God are so much better and exciting than the beginners' page. I can imagine that Jesus, as professed in the Gospel of Thomas, was excited that His followers would see and experience this for themselves - for all are the Children of God ..

JL

There is no indication that the Gospel of Thomas was used in any early Churches/congregations. As a 'Gospel', it does not readily provide any 'Good News' nor does it resonates with the other 4 Gospels. It resonates very closely with the Jefferson Bible, a Bible very few people use.

Dudes....... :biggrin: no women allowed as they might show more wisdom....