Artist Interpretation of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
(Wikipedia)
COGwriter
PCG posted the following:
December 9, 2024
After centuries of division, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are nearing reconciliation. Pope Francis wants to emphasize Catholic-Orthodox unity by celebrating the 1,700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea with Orthodox leaders. This celebration would highlight 60 years of interreligious dialogue.
In a letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople published on November 30, Pope Francis wrote:
The now imminent 1,700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea will be another opportunity to bear witness to the growing communion that already exists among all who are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I have already expressed several times my desire to be able to celebrate this event together with you, and I sincerely thank all those who have already begun working to make that possible.
Pope Francis plans to visit Turkey in May to mark the important anniversary with Bartholomew. The two men disagree on many doctrines, but both consider the decrees made at the First Council of Nicaea binding.
Emperor Constantine the Great called this council in a.d. 325 to promote religious unity throughout the Roman Empire. After months of debate, an assembly of 318 bishops set a date for Easter, formalized the trinity as Catholic dogma, and recognized three archbishops as having extra-provincial authority (the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Antioch and the bishop of Alexandria). All Christians who refused to adhere to the Nicaean Creed were exiled.
In the centuries after Nicaea, however, the bishops of Rome began claiming more authority over the church, eventually leading to the East-West Schism in a.d. 1054. Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew want to mend this schism, but this will involve settling the divisive issue of papal primacy, as well as numerous other theological disputes. …
This prediction was based on Isaiah 47, which describes a church called “the lady of kingdoms” (verse 5) that has power over nations. Yet this church has protesting churches that have split from it. Isaiah states that these churches will be brought under Babylonian control. Will the world soon witness another Nicaean council?
The original Council of Nicaea was designed to create a state-sponsored version of Christianity with the power to stamp out all forms of dissent. https://www.thetrumpet.com/30558-pope-wants-joint-catholic-orthodox-celebration-of-nicaea-anniversary
PCG is right on much of the above, however it made a serious error.
Which is?
It wrongly stated that the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea “formalized the trinity as Catholic dogma.”
That is in historical error.
It was the Council of Constantinople of 381 A.D. that formalized the trinity and made it Greco-Roman Catholic dogma.
While it is the case that Emperor Constantine’s pagan Mithra sun god religion taught a trinity, and that Constantinue endorsed the trinitarian position put forth by Athanasius at the Council of Nicea, that was NOT formally agreed to at his 325 Council. At that Council, 75-80% of the Greco-Roman bishops who attended were binitarian/semi-arian. They were NOT trinitarian and did NOT agree to a trinitarian formula.
Notice also that binitarians still were a major force after Nicea:
The second Formula of Sirmium (357) … the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a … formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, … was signed by … orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, (Benigni U. Council of Rimini. The Catholic Encyclopedia)
In the Council of Rimini, 359 A.D … nearly all bishops present, 400 in number {decided} … to sign a semi-Arian creed. (Kramer, p. 165)
EPISTLE OF THE SYNOD OF RIMINI TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS.
“We believe that it was by the appointment of God, as well as at the command of your piety, that we, the bishops of the West, came out of various districts to Rimini, in order that the faith of the Catholic Church might be detected. … God the Father, through Jesus Christ our God and Lord, the power of ruling the world. …” (Socrates, pp. 140-141)
Also in the 4th century, Bishop of Rome Liberius excommunicated the trinitarian’s champion Athanasius (Gruner, p. 48). Bishop Liberius also signed a binitarian statement (Lopes, p. 12). Furthermore:
-
- COUNCIL OF TYANĄ accepted the letter of Liberius pronouncing the Semiarian Bishops to be orthodox. (Johnson CFH, ed. The book of Saint Basil the Great, Bishop of Cappadocia, on the Holy Spirit. Claredon Press, 1892, p. lviii)
While Emperor Constantine endorsed the trinitarian view, that did NOT become a decree of that Council. Furthermore, note that the following Greco-Roman councils, that were not called for by an emperor, took binitarian/semiarian positions:
- Council of Antioch (341)
- Put out the semiarian dedication creed of the Greco Catholic Theophronius, Bishop of Tyana semiarian.
- Council of Sirmium (351)
- Issued a creed which says that the Father and Son are “like” each other, but the Son is subordinate to the Father. Holy Spirit not mentioned.
- Council of Sirmium (358)
- Produced the “Creed of Sirmium,” which says that the Father and Son are “like” each other, but the Son is subordinate to the Father. Holy Spirit not mentioned. It specifically opposed the use of the trinitarian terms “hypostasis,” and “homousios.”
- Council of Ancyra (358)
- Gathered by Basil of Ancyra, this council concluded with a creed that the Father and Son are like each other, the Son existed eternally, and that there is a Holy Spirit.
- Council of Tarsus (358)
- Supported the Semi-Arian position with a creed about the same as the Council of Anycyra.
- Council of Philippopolis (359)
- Its “Dated Creed” supported the Semi-Arian position.
- Council of Sirmium (359)
- Issued its “Dated Creed,” which was the same as the one above.
- Council of Rimini and Seleucia (359-360)
- Also known as the “Double Council,” this meeting resulted in the “Creed of Rimini,” which taught a Semi-Arian view of the Father and Son, while stating that there is a Holy Spirit.
Consider that from 370-380, Demophilus was the Patriarch (Archbishop) of Constantinople (List of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Patriarchate of Constantinople, http://patriarchateofconstantinople.com/list-of-patriarchs.html accessed 07/21/21).
Theodosius pushed decisions of his council over scripture and removed Demophilus because he refused to accept Theodosius’ creed.
What kind of person was Theodosius who mandated that creed?
Well, in addition to being a persecutor of those who held to the original catholic date of the Passover, in 390 he brought in a pagan obelisk related to Tuthmosis III from Karnack, Egypt and placed it in a central public location in Constantinople (Kahzdan A, editor-in-chief. Obelisk of Theodosius. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Volume 3. Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 1509). The obelisk was originally part of the worship of the pagan sun-god Amun-Ra. Theodosius had images of himself and his sons added to the base of that obelisk (Kahzdan A, editor-in-chief. Theodosius I. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Volume 3. Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 2051)—hence directly connecting himself to the object of pagan, sun-god worship. A similar obelisk, started by Tuthmosis III, but finished by Tuthmosis IV, was ordered to be brought to Constantinople by Constantine in 330 A.D. However, that one was delayed and sent to Rome in 337. Currently, that obelisk is at the Piazza di San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome. So, we see that both Emperors Constantine and Theodosius took steps that promoted sun-god veneration after their alleged conversion to ‘Christianity.’
Here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia says about Theodosius:
Theodosius I Roman Emperor (also known as Flavius Theodosius), born in Spain, … Theodosius is one of the sovereigns by universal consent called Great. He stamped out the last vestiges of paganism, put an end to the Arian heresy in the empire, pacified the Goths, left a famous example of penitence for a crime, and reigned as a just and mighty Catholic emperor. (Fortescue A. Theodosius I)
No, killing people who held to original catholic views on Passover as well as for other unscriptural reasons shows he did not reign justly as a real Christian emperor. No, by promoting obelisks he did not stamp out the last vestiges of paganism.
Furthermore, here is something written about Theodosius’ actions in 390 A.D. by a contemporary witness and Greco-Roman theologian named Theodoret who reported:
THESSALONICA … Here arose a great sedition, …
The emperor was fired with anger when he heard the news, and unable to endure the rush of his passion, did not even check its onset by the curb of reason, but allowed his rage to be the minister of his vengeance. When the imperial passion had received its authority, as though itself an independent prince, it broke the bonds and yoke of reason, unsheathed swords of injustice right and left without distinction, and slew innocent and guilty together. No trial preceded the sentence. No condemnation was passed on the perpetrators of the crimes. Multitudes were mowed down like ears of grain in harvest-tide. It is said that seven thousand perished. (Theodoret. Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. Dalcassian Publishing Company, 2019, p. 200)
The same source also said Theodosius was involved in “continual wars” (Ibid). Theodosius did not act like a true Christian would and most certainly was not a “great” or real Christian.
Consider, further, that in the early 2nd century, Polycarp of Smyrna wrote:
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures (Polycarp, Chapter XII. Letter to the Philippians. In Ante-Nicene Fathers).
Yes, true Christian beliefs come from the Bible. Not from councils of men who changed them from what the Bible teaches.
The current Nicene creed, that was adopted at the 381 Council of Constantinople which was convened by Emperor Theodosius, met resistance before acceptance.
Remember that Theodosius removed Demophilus from being the Patriarch of Constantinople because he would NOT accept the Emperor’s trinitarian Nicene Creed. The 5th century Greco-Roman historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote:
When the emperor found the Church in this state, he began to consider by what means he could make peace, effect a union, and enlarge the Churches. Immediately therefore he intimated his desire to Demophilus, who presided over the Arian party, and inquired whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene creed, and thus reunite the people, and establish concord. Upon Demophilus’s declining to accede to this proposal, the emperor said to him, “Since you reject peace and unanimity, I order you to quit the churches.”
Which when Demophilus heard, weighing with himself the difficulty of contending against superior power, he convoked his followers in the church, and, standing in the midst of them, thus spoke: “Brethren, it is written in the Gospel.’ If they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another. ‘ ‘ Since therefore the emperor excludes us from the churches, take notice that we will henceforth hold our assemblies without the city. (Socrates Scholasticus, pp. 265-266)
Therefore, consider that: 1) trinitarianism was not the position of the patriarchy of Constantinople, 2) Arian meant Semi-Arian above (and this happens in other writings), and 3) that political considerations, not theological ones, look to have been the reason to push trinitarianism.
Even the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople once admitted that the arians/semi-semiarians ruled that “see” for at least “forty years” in the fourth century (Gregory I of Nazianzen 379-381. © 2010 The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/former-patriarchs/gregory-i-of-nazianzen viewed 04/17/10). Furthermore, it should be understood that there is no evidence that Constantinople had any “bishops” prior to the fourth century who were actually trinitarians.
The pagan convert Theodosius declared the trinity to be the official policy of his empire in 380 A.D. and said only those who accepted it could use the term “Catholic Christian.” Yet, even that late declaration also supports the view that trinitarianism was not an original catholic belief.
But it is now so widely held, most consider it essential to be a Christian.
For example, the Vatican’s 21st century, handbook, The Bishop and Christian Unity: An Ecumenical Vademecum, basically divides professing Christianity into two groups. One group that accepts the trinitarian godhead definition adopted by the 381 A.D. Council of Constantinople and the other that does not accept it. The Vatican’s handbook only calls for ecumenical unity with the first group.
Furthermore, that is consistent with the trinitarian position adopted last century by the World Council of Churches (WCC Approves a Trinitarian Basis, Christianity Today, December 22, 1961), that has remained in effect in the 21st century (Thomas TK. “WCC, Basis of,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd ed., ed. Nicholas Lossky et al. Geneva: WCC Publications and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002: 1238–1239). The WCC only accepts trinitarians.
Thus, since the CCOG does not accept the 381 A.D. trinitarian adoption, it would not even be a target of the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican or the WCC. It, and churches closely like it, are a different group.
Blasting the Trinitarian Myth
The idea that early Christians held to trinitarianism is a myth as all reputable theological scholars admit.
Let’s summarize some facts of scripture and early church history:
- The Father and Son are not co-equal per John 14:10 and 14:28. The Father is greater.
- The Holy Spirit is not co-equal to the Son, as Jesus administers it per Matthew 11:27; John 15:26.
- Jesus was not fully human AND fully God while a man on the earth as He emptied Himself of His divinity (Philippians 2:7), of Himself could do nothing (John 5:19, 30, 8:28), was tempted as we are (Hebrews 2:18)—God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), and He died (Romans 5:6,8)—which God cannot do.
- So called “binitarian formulas” are frequently seen in the New Testament (e.g. Romans 8:11, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Peter 1:21, and 2 John 1:13).
- Although 1 John 5:7-8 is cited as proof of the trinity, the “trinitarian portion” claimed to be in those verses was added centuries after the New Testament was written.
- What has been referred to as oldest preserved Christian sermon outside of the Bible (sometimes referred to as 2 Clement) holds a binitarian view of the Godhead.
- The first known trinitarians who claimed Christianity, Montanus and Valentinus, are considered to be apostates by the Greco-Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as the Church of God.
- Early church leaders such as Ignatius, Polycarp, and Theophilus were binitarian,
- Greco-Roman saints such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were binitarian.
- The bulk of those that the Greco-Roman Catholics and Protestants consider to have been early saints were binitarian.
- The “mystery of Christ” has nothing to so with the trinity as scripture says that mystery was known by the time of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 3:1-5), centuries before the trinity was formally adopted.
- The Holy Spirit was not considered to be God by early Christians.
- The so-called ‘Apostolic Fathers’ did not hold to trinitarianism.
- Hippolytus, called “the most important theologian … in the pre-Constantinian era” by The Catholic Encyclopedia was binitarian.
- Although there was a type of trinity in the Mithratic sun god religion of Emperor Constantine, although he endorsed trinitarianism, his Imperial Council of Nicea did not endorse the trinitarian position of the Godhead.
- There are no clearly trinitarian statements by any early Bishop of Byzantium/Constantinople expressing a true trinitarian position.
- Bishop Liberius of Rome endorsed the orthodoxy of semiarianism.
- The two earliest know creeds (the Old Roman Form and Creed of Lucian) were not trinitarian.
- There were at least seven ecclesiastical councils, not called by an emperor, after the Council of Nicea, that endorsed some type of a semiarian creed.
- Shortly after converting from ancient Roman paganism, Emperor Theodosius pushed what is now called the Nicene Creed.
- When Archbishop/Patriarch of Constantinople remained semiarian, Theodosius removed him from his position.
- The adoption of the Nicene creed by Theodosius’ Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. proves it was not part of the original “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
- Emperor Theodosius then used imperial force to get his Nicene Creed accepted as persecute those who would not accept it. He had people murdered—he was not functioning as a real Christian.
The idea that the Bible and early Christians believed in the trinity of Theodosius is clearly a myth. It was not part of the original faith and should not be embraced by true Christians.
Anyway, PCG should have been more careful as the original Council of Nicea absolutely did not formally adopt the trinity as Catholic dogma.
That said, yes, there are ecumenical concerns about the proposed 1700th anniversary of that Council.Orthodox delegation to participate in Jubilee 2025 and confesses he wants to go to Nicaea’ and Roman ‘Catholic church in Portland hosts Tibetan Buddhist monks for talk on non-Christian meditation’.
Back in 2014, we put together the following video:
The Continuing Church of God is pleased to announce our latest video on our Bible New Prophecy YouTube channel:
10:44
The first ecumenical Council of Nicea was in 325 A.D. The Second Council of Nicea began in 787 A.D. The Roman Catholic Pope Francis and the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have called for a meeting between the Orthodox and the Vatican to take place in the year 2025. What was the result of the earlier councils? Does the Bible support this 2025 meeting? What are some of the dangers?
It still looks like this third council will take place.
Now some may say, they believe ecumenical unity between the Catholics of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and Protestants is a good thing. And if they were intent on contending earnestly for “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (June 3), it could be.
But it is not.
A decade ago, The Atlantic made the following statements about Nicea for 2025 and 325:
Mark your calendars: In 2025, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians may return to Nicaea, the spot in modern-day Turkey where Christianity was literally defined. In 325, early followers of Jesus came together to figure out what it means to be a Christian; the goal was to create theological consensus across all of Christendom.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/what-does-it-mean-that-there-will-be-a-new-council-of-nicaea/371943/
That is simply not case regarding 325 A.D. What happened was that the sun-god worshiping Emperor Constantine declared himself an unbaptized, unordained bishop and summoned Greco-Roman bishops under imperial threat to attend a meeting he convened.
It did not represent “all Christendom” as no Church of God leaders attended. But that council, and subsequent ones, did result in the adoption of doctrines that the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants ended up accepting. Several of which were not held by the original apostles or their faithful followers.
It was about one year after conquering the Eastern Empire (thus resurrecting the combined Roman Empire) the sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. That Council declared:
1) The Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was to be the Christian Sabbath.
2) Rules regarding seasonal prayers, penance, and indulgences.
3) That the Greco-Romans believed that Jesus was one substance with God the Father.
4) Passover would be on Sunday and not the biblical date of Nisan 14.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that this Council did not prohibit pagan sun-worship, but instead decreed that true Christians should not keep the seventh-day Sabbath nor should they be allowed to keep Passover on the 14th.
Here is some of what the Greco-Roman Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote in the mid-4th Century:
… the emperor … convened a council of 318 bishops … in the city of Nicea … They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God’s holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people …
Eventually, those in parts of Europe (e.g. Britain and Germany) changed the name from Passover to Easter (Ostern in German). Easter and Ostern are other names for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (which can be pronounced as Easter), the so-called queen of heaven (also called Ashtaroth in the Bible in 1 Samuel 12:10). The “Queen of Heaven” is also a title that has been associated with Europa, for whom the continent of Europe is named.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to claim:
1170 At the Council of Nicea in 325, all the Churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon (14 Nisan) after the vernal equinox.
This simply is not really true, and it should not be taught in the modern Catechism. Passover was still kept on the correct day by the scattered faithful church and always has been, since the time of Christ. The fact that the Emperor got an agreement from those he summoned did not change the Bible (or its truly faithful followers).
It should be noted that it is understood, even by some Roman Catholic scholars, that “Judeo-Christian” churches were not represented on at that Council. Notice what priest Bellarmino Bagatti wrote:
…the inhabitants of Syria, of Cilicia and of Mesopotamia were still celebrating Easter {Passover} with the Jews…
The importance of the matters to be discussed and the great division that existed had led Constantine to bring together a big number of bishops, including confessors of the faith, in order to give the impression that the whole of Christendom was represented.
In fact…the churches of Jewish stock had had no representation…From this we can conclude that no Judaeo-Christian bishop participated in the Council. Either they were not invited or they declined to attend. And so the capitulars had a free hand to establish norms for certain practices without meeting opposition or hearing other view points. Once the road was open future Councils would continue on these lines, thus deepening the breach between the Christians of two-stocks. The point of view of the Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion.
So, there were Christians who believed in basing doctrine only on the Bible, but they did not attend Nicea or any of the later Councils. Mainly, if not only, those who seemed to accept “Greek philosophical formation” attended. Thus, no true Christian should consider that these Councils were called of God.
Constantine’s church historian, Eusebius, recorded the following details about Constantine convening that Council:
But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter{Passover}. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those…
Then as if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters, in letters expressive of the honorable estimation in which he held them. Nor was this merely the issuing of a bare command but the emperor’s good will contributed much to its being carried into effect: for he allowed some the use of the public means of conveyance, while he afforded to others an ample supply of horses for their transport. The place, too, selected for the synod, the city Nicæa in Bithynia… In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled… Constantine is the first prince of any age who bound together such a garland as this with the bond of peace, and presented it to his Saviour as a thank-offering for the victories he had obtained over every foe, thus exhibiting in our own times a similitude of the apostolic company…
The result was that they were not only united as concerning the faith, but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter was agreed on by all…
What was the justification for this, or for Eusebius calling those who kept biblical practices “this enemy”?
Well, although the word Pascha (which means Passover) is mistranslated as Easter above and below, Constantine clearly felt that the Jews were detestable and that he did not want his church to follow practices like theirs. Notice what Constantine declared:
At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter {Passover} was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness.
It perhaps should be noted that Jesus kept Passover on the 14th. Calling the “Jewish crowd” detestable is not appropriate for real Christians. Jesus did not implement Sunday Passover as a “different way.” This is further evidence that those who are following Constantine’s decrees are not following those made by a true Christian.
The Greco-Roman Catholic Epiphanius, himself, actually admitted that the church used to observe the 14th for Passover when he wrote:
Audians…they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews–that is they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed that this used to be the church’s custom.
Thus, Epiphanius seemed to realize that Passover on the 14th was the original Passover date, even for the early Greco-Romans, since he wrote “this used to be the church’s custom.” See also the article The Passover Plot.
Protestant scholar H. Brown noted:
Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists.
So some scholars basically admit that the initial acceptance of the trinity was forced upon professing Christians by a sun-worshiping Emperor who appointed himself as a bishop (so much for that “apostolic succession”), and who proposed something that ultimately became (in 381 A.D.) the trinitarian doctrine very similar to that which the Roman Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants now teach.
Since Constantine had been a follower of Mithras, the idea of a trinitarian deity was something he and other pagans had been familiar with. L.L. Paine noted:
Mithra, who was originally subordinate to Ormuzd, and even reduced to the third place in the triad, subsequently rose practically to the first place, supplanting Ormuzd himself. Such a process, by which the mediating member of the trinity, as the special friend and savior of men, should become first and nearest in the thoughts, and affections, and hopes of men, and hence in time first in the divine order of the gods, is most natural, and we have already found it a marked feature of the historical evolution of most of the Ethnic trinities. Thus in the Babylonian triad Marduk, the mediating sun-god, usurps the place of Ea, his father. The same was true of Vishnu-Krishna in the Hindoo trinity, who, in his capacity of god- man and mediator, reduced Brahma to almost a shadow. So Mithraism pushed Ormuzd back into a place of inferiority, or rather he was quietly displaced and forgotten.
Notice the following, which Dr. Brown wrote, and which many Catholic/ Protestant/Orthodox theologians seem to accept:
The concept of three persons (hypostases)…or homooussia…the doctrine of the Trinity…will never be understood by humans in any full sense. It will always remain a mystery…
Actually, those of us in the Continuing Church of God see no real mystery here. The Greco-Roman churches had doctrinal confusion. A pagan Emperor came up with an idea. The idea was developed further by the Greco-Roman confederation. It later was enforced by various Roman emperors upon Rome’s subjects. The fact that the Bible teaches that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) provides scriptural support for the view that the Greco-Roman trinity is a human invention and the historical records document this to those who are willing to see it. See also the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?
Notice what a former priest wrote about Constantine:
Constantine … No one was ever more devoted to than he to the sun god, Sol … Emperor Constantine never relinquished his title of Pontifex Maximus, head of the pagan state cult … Twice married, he murdered Crispus his son by his first wife, in 326. He had his second wife drowned in the bath; killed his eleven year old nephew, then his brother-in-law, after giving him assurances of safe conduct under oath …
Constantine was a soldier at a time when shedding blood was unacceptable to the church … When Constantine called bishops his beloved brethren and styled himself ‘Bishop of Bishops’, which popes later appropriated, he was not a Christian, not even a catechumen. Yet no one remotely approached his stature and authority. Even the Bishop of Rome … was in comparison, a non-entity … All bishops agreed that he was ‘the inspired oracle, the apostle of Church wisdom’ …
It is another paradox of history that it was Constantine, a pagan, who invented the idea of a council of all Christian communities … At Nicaea the Founding Father of Ecumenical Councils gathered 300 hundred bishops, having laid on free transport … Maybe he simply wanted to show that he was in charge. He proposed what came to be called ‘the orthodox view’ of God’s Son being ‘of one substance’ with the Father. All dissident bishops caved in, except for two whom Constantine promptly deposed and sent packing … His cynical use of Christ, in which everyone including the Roman Bishop acquiesced, meant a profound falsification of the Gospel message and the injection of standards alien to it. (De Rosa, pp. 35,36,43,44)
A committed sun god/Mithras devotee came up with the orthodox view of the Godhead. See also Do You Practice Mithraism?
A Possible Judeo-Christian Report of Constantine’s Council of Nicea
A 10th-11th century Islamic Arab document professes to have a Judeo-Christian perspective of the Council of Nicea. Here is some of what Shlomo Pines summarized from that Arabic report of that Council and one that preceded it:
Constantine called a gathering of Christian monks with a view to the formulation of obligatory religious beliefs…However, some of them disagreed with this text…There was a scission and the symbol of faith which had been formulated was not regarded as valid.
Thereupon, three hundred and eighteen men gathered in Nicaea and formulated a symbol of faith, which was accepted and made obligatory by Constantine. People who dissented from it were killed and professions of faith differing from it suppressed.
In this way people who professed the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible; they worshipped the cross, observed the Roman religious rites and ate pork. Those who did not eat it were killed. (Pines, pp. 32,43)
So, according to an Islamic reporter, there were Christians who were upset by the changes that Emperor Constantine enforced, such as crosses and Roman religious rites. Furthermore, the same reporter stated that the “Jewish Christians” denounced the use of incense in Christian churches as “an adaptation of a Pagan custom” and that they had to become a clandestine group.
Under Constantine and his Nicean Council Mainstream “Christianity,” “Constantinian Christianity,” Emerged
A few years after the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine took bold persecuting action against those that would not accept his preferred religion which was a combination of pagan and sun-worshiping practices with the name Christianity.
To enforce persecution against Christians who did not accept Constantine’s doctrines, around 332 A.D. Constantine issued what is known as the Edict Against the Heretics:
Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics. “Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?
“FORASMUCH, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. (1) We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public.”
Some of those referred to as Paulians (Paulicians) and Cataphrygians were part of the original Church of God, thus they were not the heretics. Just because the Emperor had military might, does not make his declarations right (cf. Revelation 13:4-9; 17:1-6). See also the article Persecutions by Church and State.
Regarding this early time period, the theological historian Bart Ehrman noted:
By the early fourth century, Christianity had almost completely separated from Judaism, the religion of Jesus and his apostles…By early fourth century, non-Jewish Christianity had become a major world religion. (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Part 2. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p. 47)
The church councils, first started by Emperor Constantine, really ended up with a new religion, which could be called “Constantinian Christianity.” Constantinian Christianity included elements of Greco-Roman compromises, a church-state alliance, and pagan elements synchronized to become the religion of the State.
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that according to Eastern Orthodox Catholic sources, at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, “There is no mention of the bishop of Constantinople due to the fact that this “see” was as yet an insignificant little town” (Patsovas L. The Primacy of the See of Constantinople in Theory and Practice. © 2010 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/primacy-constantinople viewed 02/09/10). But many of the Orthodox and others will overlook that.
Now, what will be the result of the planned 2025 Council of Nicea?
As far as can be determined, both Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew hope that greater ecumenical unity will occur between their respective organizations.
According to an Eastern Orthodox prophet the final (the Orthodox recognize seven previous ones) ecumenical synod council satisfies what “heretics” want:
Saint Neilos the Myrrh-Gusher (died 1592): During that time the Eighth and last Ecumenical Synod will take place, which will satisfy the contentions of the heretics…(Tzima Otto, p. 111).
By satisfying “heretics”, clearly this council compromises and changes the religion, which will be called “Catholic.” If heretics are truly heretics, should their complaints be satisfied?
Will that happen in 2025? It very well may–though perhaps only some parts will be updated related to unity. The Orthodox had called for an eighth ecumenical council in 2016, which could be this (see Orthodox agree to eighth ecumenical council: If Orthodox prophecy is correct on it, this council marks a major step towards the end!). But if not, it may be in near or by 2025 some type of council will result in the type of ecumenical unity that Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew want.
The results of the original Council of Nicea were terrible and there is no reason to believe that a possible meeting there in 2025 will result in true good. Let me add that the World Council of Churches has also been preparing for this 1700th anniversary of Nicea.
The Bible teaches that the only true unity of the faith will happen AFTER the false ecumenical movement is eliminated which happens with the return of Jesus Christ (e.g. Zechariah 2:6-11).
What certain religious leaders are trying to do is not the will of God. But likely will result in the fulfillment of certain biblical prophecies.
Some items of related interest may include:
What Was the Original Apostles’ Creed? What is the Nicene Creed? Did the original apostles write a creed? When was the first creed written? Are the creeds commonly used by the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics original? Here is a link to a related video: The Original Apostles’ Creed?
Why Should American Roman Catholics Fear Unity with the Orthodox? Are the current ecumenical meetings a good thing or will they result in disaster? Is doctrinal compromise good? Here is a link to a related video Should you be concerned about the ecumenical movement?
Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics Unity between these groups will put them in position to be part of the final end time Babylon that the Bible warns against as well as require improper compromise.
Will the Interfaith Movement Lead to Peace or Sudden Destruction? Is the interfaith movement going to lead to lasting peace or is it warned against? A video sermon of related interest is: Will the Interfaith Movement lead to World War III? and three video sermonette are also available: Pope Francis signs ‘one world religion’ document! and The Chrislam Cross and the Interfaith Movement and Do You Know That Babylon is Forming?
Freemasonry and the Destruction of Rome? What is Freemasonry? What about ties to the Illuminati? Could Freemasons be involved in the fulfillment of prophecy? Here is a link to a related sermon: Freemasonry, Armageddon, and Rome.
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Continuing Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are? Here is a link to a related sermon: Eastern Orthodox 40+ Similar Beliefs to the CCOG.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
The Great Monarch: Biblical and Greco-Roman Catholic Prophecies Is the ‘Great Monarch’ of Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies endorsed or condemned by the Bible? Two sermons of related interest are also available: Great Monarch: Messiah or False Christ? and Great Monarch in 50+ Beast Prophecies.
Beware: Protestants Going Towards Ecumenical Destruction! What is going on in the Protestant world? Are Protestants turning back to their ‘mother church’ in Rome? Does the Bible warn about this? What are Catholic plans and prophecies related to this? Is Protestantism doomed? See also World Council of Churches Peace Plan.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
Will the Interfaith Movement Lead to Peace or Sudden Destruction? Is the interfaith movement going to lead to lasting peace or is it warned against? A video sermon of related interest is: Will the Interfaith Movement lead to World War III? and a video sermon is also available: Do You Know That Babylon is Forming?
Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter? If not, when did this happen? Where did Easter come from? Is Easter supposed to be Passover? What do scholars and the Bible reveal? Here is a link to a related video: Amazing Facts About Easter.
Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins? There is also a detailed YouTube video available titled History of the Christian Passover.
Tonto said…
