Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: nicaean council Message-ID:Date: 12 Aug 89 02:14:37 GMT Organization: University of Houston Lines: 68 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [When you read this note, please keep in mind that what we have here is a case of two people being in violent agreement. The message quoted here was a response to claims by a TV show that Constantine was responsible for the contents of the Nicene Creed, and in particular that it was written by his secretary. The intent of my response was (1) that the overall contents can't have been invented by Constantine, because it is very close to baptismal creeds that predated Nicea, and (2) specifically that we don't know the details of what happened during the council, so the role of Constantine's secretary could at best be conjecture. I certainly did not intend to throw doubt on the fact that the Creed was the product of the Council. --clh] > [Unfortunately, we simply don't know exactly where they got the Nicene > Creed. This is suspect. The Council of Nicea was held 325 A.D. I have ran into skads of material in my Medieval History books that mention it. Further, I have a copy of a woodcut of Constantine presenting the work of the Council to Christ in "The Lost books of the Bible". This same book contains the Apostle's Creed, which was not considered cannonical because it was more a commentary than a new doctrinal revelation. It would be easier to contest the existence of Julius Caesar based upon primary and secondary references. > It's certainly based on baptismal creeds already in use. E.g. > a creed from Caesarea (apparently from Eusebius) is very similar to > the Nicene creed. What did you expect? The first creed was "Jesus was Lord". As Christains were being less often fed to lions, the had more time to elaborate on the theme, hence the Roman Creed (aka the Apostle's Creed). >To complicate things, the creed that we normally > call "Nicene" isn't. It is later than Nicea. It is traditionally > connected with the council of Constantinople (381), but doesn't appear > specifically in the records of that council. You forget that Emperor Theodosius held this Council to REAFFIRM THE NICENE CREED before taking action. > However it was accepted > by the council of Chalcedon (451) as being the result of > Constantinople. --clh] > Chalcedon dealt with new enemies of the Church. The Arians had faded. The Monophysites,Nestorians, Pellagians and Manicheans appeared. Chalcedon was to take care of the first 2, Orange was to take care of the second 2. Chalcedon did not generate the Creed, but it was certainly a plausible topic of discussion. Nicea also determined that the first Sunday after the first Pascal Full Moon (roughly the "Real" Full Moon) after Spring Solstice (usually March 21) would become Easter. The followers of St. Athanasius developed, over a period of decades, their own Creed, the Athanasian Creed. You might want to examine Anthony Coniaris'es book for both theological and historical perspective. Finally, the because the Nicene Creed has the unique distinction of being the only Creed from a Church Council of the entire Church, it can be considered as the Original Church Constitution. -ceb