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