Talk:First Council of Nicaea/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

older entries

"The Nicene Creed" section includes the sentence:

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words.

This sentence is confusing for two reasons:

1) Were left after cutting away other creedal formulas or left by the Council Fathers to us? If it's the first, then what document's third article was pared down, leaving behind only "and in the Holy Spirit"? The antecedent is missing. This might refer to the Council Father's consideration of various existing baptismal and local creeds, but that's not evident. If the meaning was that "and in the Holy Spirit" was all that the Fathers of this council left to us of our present Niceno-constantinopolitan creed, then this is really unclear.

2) The identifier "the third article" is ambiguous. This sentence follows three enumerated points, and so "the third article" could be taken to refer to the third point. More importantly, although Luther (see Small Catechism) and Calvin (see Institutes) referred to the "three articles" in the creeds , this is not universally accepted terminology. When Catholics speak of the "articles of the creed", they mean the 12 articles of the Apostles' Creed. The Nicene Creed Wikipedia article never addresses the structure of the creed, although the Apostles' Creed article states, under Episcopal Church (USA) baptismal rites section, that the creed is "divided into three parts".

I think the the "left-behind" notion be left out. "Third article" could be changed to "third part" or "third section", or better yet, not referenced directly, since it is at best a stub in the creed of the Nicene Council. I'd recommend:

The original Nicene Creed ended with the words "and in the Holy Spirit", without further elaborating on the nature or role of the Holy Spirit.

I think this probably captures the intent better and expresses it more clearly.

I'd also recommend the First Council of Constantinople article should be change its terminology from "third article" to "third part".

Echevalier 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the result of this council ? Taw

Thanks so much for making this page, i used it for my term paper!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdjake60 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed text to show that the 1st council was not the beginning of the controversies, but the first church-wide attempt to deal with them. Had there been no controversies, there would have been no need for the council. JHCC 14:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody have a citation for Athenasius' count of 318 bishops in attendance? I can find no mention of the attendance in any of his works, and I find the number suspect since it was also the year of Arius' excommunication. -Peter

6 June 2004: I've found the citation for the "318" figure. It's Socrates Scholasticus, Book I, Chapter 8, section 10. Updating as required. -Peter

I added the Wikification tag under the second section. --Bastique 15:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Bishop Theognis of Nice, links to Nice, France it seems a wrong link to me ? Ericd 20:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I modified the link to Theognis of Nice as well as the other fellow, but now they go nowhere. Someone needs to write some articles! --Bastique 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicaea creates orthodoxy?

I agree that it would be best to use talk for this, as I really think your addition misleading.

I don't understand in what sense you think Nicaea 'created' orthodoxy, that did not exist before? It created a creed; but we don't find the idea that the Christian religion is created at Nicaea in the fathers. Indeed, why Nicaea rather than Chalcedon?

It was the first Ecumenical council, from which many more would follow. What was the purpose of Ecumenical Councils? To create creeds, or commonly held beliefs that everyone could follow, the creation of orthodoxy. It doesnt say the council of nicea "created Christianity", why do you say that, who could believe that? Chalcedon happened in 451, why compare that with Nicea from 325? I really think your mis-interpreting whats written. Stbalbach 8 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. It was the first ecumenical council -- that, I agree is a fact. But it is not the same as saying 'it created orthodoxy'. I disagree with your statement about the purpose of ecumenical councils; to create a creed, to resolve a dispute, is not to create orthodoxy. What did Nicaea do that Chalcedon did not?

Ive removed "orthodox" since this seems to be a source of confusion and refined and added some additional significance. See the articles creed, Nicene Creed, orthodox and Ecumenical council -- they all pretty much support what i was saying and am saying now, as do external sources which can be cited if needed. Stbalbach 19:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'm not sure how to inquire about this, but the entire first paragraph of this article is almost word-for-word identical to another article on at http://experts.about.com/e/f/fi/First_Council_of_Nicaea.htm

I'm not sure if this is somehow allowable or if one ripped off the other or what.

The about.com page is a mirror of this one at some point in its development. (Possibly recently, but I haven't taken the trouble to examine it closely.) Notice how it's formatted exactly like a Wikipedia article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for revising this paragraph, which is immensely better. Some comments:

The Council of Nicea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly the claimed to represent all of Christiandom.

I think this is probably correct as stated, although there had been councils before this.

No councils that fit that description, that claimed to represent all of Christiandom. This gets back to "orthodoxy". Somthing is othodox if everyone agrees to it. That's what Nicaea did for the first time, created an orthodoxy. Im not making it up, I'd be happy to cite sources on this.

I hardly think Athanasius would agree that something is orthodox if everyone agrees to it! But instead of opinion, why not cite your (ancient) sources? That would be useful to everyone. The earlier councils were not universal, of course, but nevertheless represent the same process, surely?

It was the first occasion for the development of Christology.

Hmm. Are you sure? I had always thought that the Nicene definition was about the nature of the godhead, and the Christological disputes took place in subsequent councils, esp. Chalcedon (I've been reading a lot of Nestorian writers lately, hence why its on my mind).

Yes I'm sure. It addressed the issue of of the Arian heresy. See Christology. I can also provide citations.

Christology is about the nature of Christ Jesus, the two/one natures, etc. Arianism was a heresy concerned with the second person of the Trinity, not with the incarnation. I think the opinion of a professional would be the best thing to seek here. Everything trinitarian can be defined as a question of Christology in a way; but I think the usage is different.

Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church.

It isn't quite clear that he presided over it -- he did sit on the throne in the hall, and address participants. Sozomen, Theodoret and Socrates Scholasticus state that he convened the council (but I have some doubts on this -- I'm sure I have read an earlier ancient account that suggests that the council was already assembling at Ancyra, and that Hosius of Cordova persuaded the emperor to pay the bills, so Western bishops could attend, and so it was held at Nicaea).

It is the mainstream view that he is the one who convoked the council and he was the ultimate authority.

This seems to be an appeal to authority rather than evidence, and I (and most people) dislike this. But if there is a printed statement by a mainstream scholar (ideally in a study of the historiography) to this effect, shouldn't we have that in the article? Whether they are right is another matter. Because...

...the historical record shows a Constantine deferential to the assembled fathers, not acting as or seen as the ultimate religious authority. Think of Constantius, who really did try this on, and how he is presented in the texts.

He didn't have to physically always be there, I imagine, just as the founder of Wikipedia doesnt have to be at everywhere, but he was the ultimate authority which is what is meant by presiding over, not to be taken literarlly.

Possibly we're talking about different things. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia (for instance) you will find a different view, that Hosius of Cordova presided. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the source on which this is based. If we're saying 'the emperor had all the real power in the empire', then that is true (-ish) but not really relevant as a statement specifically about Nicaea, surely?

On the other point: T.D.Barnes in 'Constantine and Eusebius' makes the point that Constantine's religious policy was hamstrung by his refusal (unlike his successors) to interfere in church matters. But it is certainly the case that the precedent of imperial involvement was exploited by his successors. How about "Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council set a precedent of state involvement in Christian disputes over doctrine"?

It was more than Christian disputes, just focusing on that looses the real significance. In the East the line between Imperial and Church blurred they became one and the same almost.

This seems to project the situation in the 5th century into the early 4th century, tho. I don't think we should do this. Half a century of development, and a pagan reaction, stand between these events.

This is significant and important in the development of the east and west, where in the west we have a clear separation of Church and State, unlike in the east (and many other places) where such a concept was foriegn, although that needs to be expanded on in the body of the article and not the intro paragraph.

I agree, but I am quite unsure that we can state all this as fact (rather than opinion) and relevant to Nicaea. It can't become an issue any earlier than Christianity is the state religion, with Theodosius. I think also we need to be a bit wary. I can see you aren't Eastern Orthodox, and neither am I; but they might well have a different view on the relation of church and state than seems to be the case to us. Even Justinian is treated as a heretic.

How about "Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council set a precedent of state involvement in the Christian Church in the eastern Empire which was unknown in the Western empire."

Hmm. Perhaps. Maybe "less known in the Western empire" (thinking of Sirmium)?

Finally it drew up a statement of the fundamental beliefs to which Christians would adhere, which would become known as the Nicene Creed.

I'm not sure that I agree that the Nicene creed is 'the fundamental beliefs to which Christians adhere.' There are a great many things not mentioned in it, which are fundamental and were so then. It really excludes certain things, rather than being a comprehensive statement.

This could be reworded, but the significance of the nicene creed, the end-result of the council, needs to be mentioned.

Agreed. Finding some words which are not an opinion on the significance is harder tho, isn't it? Hmmm... (thinking) The significance is perhaps that it set the pattern for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which was intended to become binding on all Christians (didn't always manage this)? This is not recorded of any earlier council, after that in the Acts.

It would serve to unify the Church and provide a clear guideline on what it meant to be a practicing Christian,

It was intended to unify the church. But the second part suggests that people didn't know -- and they did.

"..and provide clear guidelines over disputed matters..."

Sounds good.

a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

Not sure I understand what is being said here.

It's a high-level summation of the preceeding points. The Council was momentus in the development of the Christian Church (image if there had never been any COuncils and Christianity remaine fractualized sects), and the unified Christian Church played probably the singular most influential role in the next 1000 years of European history. The importance of the Council can not be under-emphesised.

OK then. Although Christianity was not 'fractured sects' in 324. Had it been, the idea of a general council on a point of theology would have been impossible, in view of the wide other divergences. The heretics and schismatics were not invited to Nicaea (although a Novatianist bishop was present in the city, and subscribed to the Nicene definition when asked if he would, as you probably recall).

--Stbalbach 16:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

But as I said, much better.

Sounds as if we're getting there. Thanks for the comments. Roger Pearse

I can't follow all the above nested comments its getting confusing. I hope the recent edits address your concerns better. Please keep in mind this is a general purpose encyclopedia, its vital that there be a high level contextual summary of what the council of nicea was, and why its important in the scope of history, that anyone can understand, in simple language. I personally think its become much too complex for %99 of the people who will be reading this, anyone who really knows the debates behind the issues will not be looking to Wikipedia, this is not a masters of theology thesis. All of things are standard historiographical statements I can find more references it is mainstream standard analysis. The notion that I need to quote "ancient sources" is absolutely not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about. Its about presenting mainstream views on topics and these are the mainstream views. Stbalbach 22:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Passover/Easter

I'm getting tired of this SDA POV that's being added everywhere. Epiphanius wrote in Greek. You cannot distinguish "Easter" and "Passover" in Greek as they're both the same word. If one translator or another takes "Pascha" for "Passover", that's his choice. It doesn't change the meaning of the word though, which in this context can only refer to the Christian celebration that in English and German alone, out of the hundreds of languages in which Christ is worshipped, is called something like "Easter". (Although it is theologically correct: Easter is indeed the Christian Passover in the theology of most Christians.) In most languages it's still something similar to "Pascha". Saying "Passover, now called Easter" just confuses the issue for English speakers without adding new information on each repetition. I'll be fixing this when I find the time. Trying to disentangle the additions reflecting the same POV in other articles is taking up too much of my time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Typo in Attendees

Irmgard added to the section "Attendees", including the following:

 These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to 
 bring with him two presbyters and three diacons. was accompanied 
 by clerics, so the total number of attendees would have been above
 1500.

It looks like something might be missing between "presbyters and three diacons" and "was accompanied by clerics" (but I don't know anything about this, so I can't fix it).

Passover

Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar -The date of the crucifixion was 15th day of the 1st month according to the Bible's Hebrew Calendar since Jesus kept the Passover(14th of the 1st month) in the Bible(Matthew 26:17~28, Mark 14:12~24, Luke 22:7~20) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.59.46 (talk • contribs) .

That's assuming the Last Supper was a seder, as the Synoptics seem to say. There's good evidence that John has the correct chronology though. First, not even the Synoptics say anything about the Supper that makes it obviously a seder. None of the seder's regular features are mentioned. Second, if it was a seder we are being asked to believe that Jesus' trial took place on the first evening of the Passover when the entire Sanhedrin ought to have been feasting with their families instead. John puts it an evening earlier, which seems to make more sense. (And also incidently agrees with Mark 14:2, where it's decided not to put Jesus to death on the Passover.)

Since the point here is to report that some Christians kept the Pascha on 14 Nisan, it makes sense to also report their reasons for so doing. They believed that the crucifixion took place on 14 Nisan, and this was the accepted traditional date. (As it still is in many churches.) It makes little sense to argue with them about it at this point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus died on the cross on the 15th of the Nissan. Jews did not crucify Jesus on the Passover(14th of the 1st month) since they were afraid of touching the dead body. They become unclean if they touch the dead body. The ceremonially unclean can't celebrate the Passover, which is important festival to the Jews, according to the Law of Moses(Numbers 7:6~8)

The Jews didn't crucify Jesus, they turned him over to the Romans for crucifixion. The Gospels are clear on this. Nevertheless, because of the festival that was about to begin the Jewish authorities did not want the bodies hanging on the crosses just outside the walls, so they asked that the legs of the victims be broken to hasten their deaths. This is when the soldiers found that Jesus was already dead. See John 19:31-37. Note especially that in vs 31 the day is called "the preparation" and that the Sabbath was "a high day".

Besides, the Passover only begins on the evening of 14 Nisan (15 Nisan by Jewish reckoning.) It ends a week later. Why would they scruple to carry out an execution on the first day of the festival and not the second? TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the the gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus kept the Passover with bread and wine on the 14th day of the 1st month.(Matthew 26:17~28, Mark 14:12~23, Luke 22:7~20), which means he was alive on the Passover date. Jesus is the one who said "My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house" in Matthew 26:18, "Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?: in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11.

It's clear he observed the Passover with bread and wine, this is true. However, one does not keep the Jewish Passover with bread and wine, but with roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. There is no mention of these things in the Gospels. (The cup of wine for Elias is part of a modern seder, but I don't know when that was introduced. There's no requirement for it in the Law.) One keeps the Christian Passover with bread and wine -- which is to say, the Lord's Supper, and this may be observed on any day, not only on the day of the Passover. There is therefore no reason to say this must have been the evening of 14 Nisan, and a number of reasons which I mentioned earlier to say it probably wasn't. (I would also say he more instituted the new Passover on that day than kept it. He says himself he would eat it, not keep it.)

But again, your private interpretation here isn't relevant to the article. The Quartodecimans believed the Last Supper to have taken place on the day of 14 Nisan (beginning on the evening of 13 Nisan, which was 14 Nisan in Jewish reckoning), and it's their opinion that has to do with the date controversy of the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus did say not only "eat the Passover", but also "I am going to celebrate the Passover" (Matthew 26:28). He instituded the new covenant Passover on that day and gave us the example to celebrate this new Passover with bread and wine. Therefore, we should celebrate the Passover with bread and wind just as Jesus celebrated it. Also, I just wanted to point to the misunderstanding of that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan. He was alive on the 14th day of Nisan since he kept the Passover.

Council of Jerusalem wasn't the first Ecumenical Council?

According to Acts of the Apostles, the Council of Jerusalem was "WITH THE CONSENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH!" WHOLE CHURCH = Ecumenical. "Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’" (Acts15:22-29NRSV)

That doesn't make it an Ecumenical Council. See my reply to your post on my talk page.

You also don't seem to have understood what I meant by a cite. We can't just decide for ourselves here what constitutes an Ecumanical Council and what does not. That would be original research and unverifiable. You need to point to someone else who has called it an Ecumenical Council in some standard, reliable reference.

I suppose you might say that you're simply listing the previous church council. Actually, there were a number of church councils between Jerusalem and Nicaea. So Jerusalem isn't the "previous" one in any event.

Therefore, I'm re-reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree to some extent. There is after all the "Seven Ecumenical Councils". However, what distinquishes these "Ecumenical Councils" is that they were called by Emperors, not that they necessarily represented the whole church. Were christians outside the Roman Empire represented at Nicaea? All of them? Nicaea was rejected by Nontrinitarianism. On the other hand, according to Acts, the Council of Jerusalem was agreed to by unanimous accord of the whole church at that time. The Apostolic Decree (Acts15:23-29) is part of the canonical Bible.209.78.20.114 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not User:216.196.129.221 .209.78.20.114 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ch.asp

"ASIDE from the first general gathering of the bishops of the Church - the Council of Jerusalem, which occurred around A.D. 50 (Acts 15) and which is usually not counted as an ecumenical council - there have been 21 ecumenical or general councils of the bishops of the Catholic Church. (The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the first seven as ecumenical councils.)"

"A council is recognized as ecumenical once its works are approved by a pope. The pope does not need to attend a council for it to be an ecumenical council."

It seems that some do consider CoJ an ecumenical council. It was accepted by the entire Church. If it was not the council directly previous to Nicea, I ask what other council between CoJ and Nicea issued pastoral or doctrinal decrees that was accepted by the entire Church? If the answer is none, then CoJ was the ecumenical council previous to Nicea. Just because Philip Schaff (whoever he is)refers to Nicea as the first EC doesn't mean it is. My citing CoJ as the first does not constitute original work, as shown above. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, it was a council of the entire Church that issued decrees accepted by all of Christianity. If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I don't need anybody else's help before I can confidently call it a duck. For the sake of discussion, let's define terms. What do you mean by "ecumenical"? What was the definition of "ecumenical council" (and who defined it?) before the RC Church supposedly tagged it with their present definition?

No, some do not consider it an Ecumenical Council. It was not Schaff's decicion. Ecumenical Councils -- at least the first seven -- gain their authority when they're recognized as such by other councils. Nicaea is universally recognized as the first. We are not free to change that here just because it fits someone's personal definition of what an Ecumenical Council is. See Ecumenical Council if there's confusion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ecumenical Councils -- at least the first seven -- gain their authority when they're recognized as such by other councils."..... Says who? Besides, that's a circular equation.

Says Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not circular; the councils happened serially. The seventh council was ratified by councils that do not have formal Ecumenical character, but were accepted by all the local Orthodox Churches. Naturally, this differs from the criteria used by the Roman Catholics, who say that they must be ratified by a Pope. But we do agree on what the first seven were, and the first was Nicaea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecumenical Council is a historical term, it may have been coined by Schaff. Maybe someone can verify who coined it and add it to Ecumenical Council if it's not already there. In addition, the phrase Seven Ecumenical Councils is well understood and well defined. If there is a valid reference (Cite sources) that claims the Council of Jerusalem is the first Ecumenical Council, it should be cited, otherwise the claim should be dropped as original research which is not allowed on wikipedia.63.201.26.43 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Schaff did not coin the phrase; that's absurd to even suggest. (He is, besides, a widely recognized, reliable, and citable source himself, so see [1]. In footnote 2 he cites earlier usages of the term.) It of ancient usage in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. See [2] on "General Councils" which also treats Ecumenical Councils, and [3] which lists the Ecumenical Councils that happened in the 4th century, specifically mentioning Nicaea as the first. ~~To call this "original research" on my part is to frankly go off the deep end.~~ TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I took your edit summary at face value without paying much attention to what the edit was. You reverted 216.196.133.202's changes as original research, not mine. Clearly a typo. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can all agree that the claim that the Council of Jerusalem is the first Ecumenical Council is original research, unless a reputable cite can be found for it. The claim that Nicaea is the first Ecumenical council is well documented.63.201.26.43 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

(And now looking more closely, I see I misread your edit summary completely. My apologies again. This is what I get for trying to do two things at the same time.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, anyway, on purely academic interest, are you sure the definition of Ecumenical Council being used isn't Schaff's? Not that there's anything wrong with that, he is a highly reputable source, and isn't the book being cited his Seven Ecumenical Councils? Or am I confused? I know it's part of NPNF, but I think it's Seven Ecumenical Councils, or related. Also, did Schaff coin the phase Seven Ecumenical Councils, or someone earlier? If earlier, who? Anyway, if you check the cite, it says:

An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world.

Under this definition, Jerusalem would qualify, but I don't believe Schaff even considers it. He goes on in the footnote to state:

This was until the division of the East and West the definition accepted by all the whole Christian world. But since the Church has been divided, while the East has kept to the old definition and has not pretended to have held any Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Church has made a new definition of the old term and has then proceeded to hold a very considerable number of synods which she recognizes as Ecumenical. I say “a very considerable number,” for even among Roman Catholic theologians there is much dispute as to the number of these “Ecumenical Synods,” the decrees of which, like those of Trent and the Vatican, have never been received by about half of the Christian world, including four of the five patriarchates and of the fifth patriarchate all the Anglican communion. According to modern Roman writers the definition of these non-ecumenically received Ecumenical Synods is “Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops and others entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world under the Presidency of the Pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, s. v. Councils. The reader will notice that by this definition one at least (I. Constantinople), probably three, of the seven undisputed Ecumenical Synods cease to be such.

Schaff says his definition was accepted by the whole church before the east-west split. I don't doubt that claim, but it would be nice to have the specific cites. Schaff goes on to say the Catholic Church has changed its definition and that under its definition not all the Seven Ecumenical Councils qualify. Seems to me, there is a modern Catholic definition of Ecumenical Council, there is a Schaff definition, and there are earlier definitions would should be referenced. This should be stated in the article Ecumenical Councils. Also, under Schaff's definition, the Council of Jerusalem would qualify, however, there needs to be a reputable cite that makes this claim, otherwise it is just original research and excludable from wikipedia.63.201.26.43 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Schaff mentions all his sources here [4], and yes it's Volume 14 of NPNP titled The Seven Ecumenical Councils [5]. The Ecumenical Councils have proven rather difficult to characterize, but "everyone" knows which they are. The problem with the newer Papal definition is that one of the first seven doesn't qualify under it, but they recognize it anyway. It seems that no matter what definition you settle on, one might slip out. Acceptance by the "whole church" (however you define the "whole church") is perhaps the most useful. How that acceptance is expressed (by other Councils in the East, or by Papal decree in the West) may vary, but the principle is the same. This probably should, as you say, be made explicit in Ecumenical council. I have my lecture notes on the subject which I obviously can't use as a source,

I cited my source above. Others have refered to the CoJ as an Ecumenical council, I am not the first, so it is not original research. It fits all of the criteria. It issued doctrinal or pastoral decrees to the entire Church, it was recognized by a Pope, and its decrees have been accepted as valid by other councils.Is there any major Christian body that does not recognize the validity of the decrees of the JoC? Since it meets all of the criteria, I'm calling it an EC.

Fair enough. Calling the Council of Jerusalem an Ecumenical Council is not traditional, but some have called it so. Therefore put it in the article, but don't exclude the fact that this is not the traditional view. At any point where the Council of Jerusalem is stated as being an Ecumenical Council, it should also state that this is a minority opinion, and that Nicaea is usually considered the first. This would mean that it might not be appropriate for an infobox, as the clear argument for both sides cannot be made in such short space. I do believe also, that the Eastern Orthodox usually consider the convocation by secular power (e.g. the emperor) to be an important factor. To sum up: add this minority understanding in a balanced way well down the body of the text. — Gareth Hughes 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this is still original research. What you need to do is to find some reputable sources outweighing all other citations (for example, [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] just for starters, and never mind print sources) and the weight of universal ecclesiastical and scholarly usage, that explicitly calls Jerusalem an "Ecumenical Council". This you have not done. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not add in the info box: Previous Council: None, however a minority claim the Council of Jerusalem?63.201.26.43 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that looks better. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the claim is still unsourced. That's why it doesn't deserve even a qualified mention. If it's an Ecumenical Council, then someone other than 216.196.133.202 must call it that, and do so on some kind of reasonable basis. The Ecumenical Councils were first named that becuase they were called by the Roman Emperor who summoned all the bishops of the oikumene, by which expression was understood the Roman Empire. Jerusalem long predates that terminology and practice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, not attacking your opinions, mostly just curious: Did Eusebius coin this word? I'm thinking Jerome did, or that he was the first to call Nicaea the first great universal council or somesuch. Anyway, that's my question: who was the first to tie Ecumenical to Nicaea? The answer should be cited, in this article and Ecumenical councils.63.201.26.43 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some quick comments: English Ecumenical comes from Greek oikoumene, the most likely Greek definition is that of the Roman Emperors who used oikoumene for the Roman Empire, as if the rest of the world, the barbarian world, didn't count. So the question is, who was the first to call Nicaea by the term oikoumene? Eusebius? Jerome? Sozomen? Socrates? Who? That answer should be cited.63.201.26.43 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have no idea who coined it. I'm not even certain that Eusebius used the phrase since all the translations I've seen of his Life of Constantine say "General Council", so he may have used some other word. I know for sure that Pope Gregory I used it, but he can't have been the first, and it's a matter of record that he didn't properly understand what the word meant. In the Eastern Empire, things associated with the Emperor or the Imperial City tended to have the adjective "Ecumenical" applied to it; hence "Ecumenical Patriarch". Even the chief librarian of Constantinople was the "Ecumenical Librarian". When that first started I have no idea. I'll have to see if its in the Pedalion or something. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly as an aside: Acts 15:22 doesn't use it, it uses "holei tei ekklesiai" (whole church), though the Greek NT does use oikoumene elsewhere, I believe - for the Roman Empire. Obviously, by this definition, the Council of Jerusalem could not be "Ecumenical" since it did not represent the Roman Empire and was not convoked by the Emperor. My vague memory tells me Jerome was the first to use oikoumene for Nicaea, but I don't have a reference.63.201.26.43 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be odd, since as far as I know Jerome wrote mainly in Latin. (Which still would not make it impossible, considering Jerome's scholarly qualifications.) The term was taken up into Latin, but it must have already had an established Greek usage at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Latin word is Oecumenicus, borrowed from the Greek. For further reference, from Bauer's Greek Lexicon: The Martyrdom of Polycarp uses oikoumenen ekklesoin (world churches) at 5.1, at 8.1 and 19.2 it uses oikoumenen katholikes ekklesias (world universal church). It also states Augustus ruled the world, so world is largely understood to mean Roman Empire rather than the modern meaning.63.201.26.43 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this: [11], is by Henry R. Percival. Pentecost, 1899. And, I point out: [12] It may not be unjustly expected that some reasons should be assigned for limiting the number of the Ecumenical Synods to seven. There is no need here to enter into any proof that Nice, I. Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon are Ecumenical, since so long ago as the time of St. Gregory the Great, that Saint and Doctor said of them: "I venerate the first four Ecumenical Councils equally with the Four Gospels (sicut quatuor Evangelia),"10 and no one has been found to question that in so saying he gave expression to the mind of the Church of his day. Of the fifth and sixth synods there never was any real doubt, although there was trouble at first about the reception of the fifth in some places. The ecumenical character of the seventh is not disputed by East or West and has not been for near a thousand years, and full proof of its ecumenicity will be found in connection with that council. There is therefore no possible doubt that these seven must be included, but it may be asked why certain others are not here also. The following is a list of those that might seem to have a claim: Sardica (343 circa), Quinisext (692), Constantinople (869), Lyons (1274), and Florence (1439). The reasons for rejecting the claims of Sardica will be found in connection with the canons set forth by that council. The same is the case with regard to the claims of the Synod in Trullo. It is true that IV. Constantinople, holden in a.d. 869, was for a short while held as Ecumenical by both East and West, and continues to be held as such by the Latin Church down to this day, but it was soon rejected by the East and another synod of Constantinople (879), which undid much of its work, has for the Greeks taken its place. However the Easterns do not claim for this synod an ecumenical character, but confine the number to seven. The Councils of Lyons and Florence both fail of ecumenicity for the same reason. At both the East was represented, and at each an agreement was arrived at, but neither agreement was subsequently accepted in the East, and the decrees therefore have failed, as yet, of receiving ecumenical acceptance. We are left therefore with Seven Ecumenical Councils, neither more nor less, and these are fully treated of in the pages that follow.

From this it appears that "Ecumenical" was coined by St. Gregory the Great, but in reference to "Four Ecumenical Councils". It appears that "Seven Ecumenical Councils" may have been coined by Percival.64.169.6.113 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly right here: H. R. Percival, The Decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Appendix I. to A Digest of Theology (London, Masters, 1893).64.169.6.113 06:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't. The Orthodox Church has been called "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils" for many centuries, both in a positive sense (by ourselves) and in a negative sense (by the non-Chalcedonians). It has numbered seven councils at least since the council of 879-880. It can also mean the undivided church before the East-West Schism. This is not a recent idea, but like any expression that's been used for time out of mind, its origin is not easy to track down. But if all we need is an earlier usage than Percival, see the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs [13]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the notion of 7 Ecumenical Councils was Protestant, Jesuit or Greek Orthodox. Sounds most plausible that it is Greek Orthodox.64.169.6.84 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And I think I've got the first documented use of Ecumenical right here, the Synodical Letter of 382 to Pope Damasus and colleagues by the Council of Constantinople[14]:

"Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which is fearlessly and frankly preached by us, and concerning which you will be able to be still further satisfied if you will deign to read the tome of the synod of Antioch, and also that tome issued last year by the Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople, in which we have set forth our confession of the faith at greater length, and have appended an anathema against the heresies which innovators have recently inscribed."

If you read NPNF further you will see that it's not clear Damasus agreed that Constantinople was Ecumenical.64.169.6.113 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It was some time before Rome accepted the second council, yes. But there were several decades between the fist two, and from context it appears that Damasus expected to be understood when he used the phrase. He cannot have coined it. If we had Eusebius in Greek we would be able to tell for sure.

It was not Damasus but the Council which coined the phrase. The Letter is from the Council to Damasus. The Council (of Constantinople) is claiming to be Ecumenical, probably because Constantinople was considered New Rome, something which Damasus no doubt found amusing. It may be that Constantinople was the first to claim to be Ecumenical, because it was held in the capital. What do you mean if we had Eusebius in Greek?64.169.6.84 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Brain fart. I meant to phrase that the other way around. I have to admit I'm getting a little lost amid the multiple postings, so I could easily miss something you've added too.

If we had the Greek text for Eusebius' Life of Constantine we'd be able to tell if the word translated as "general" in "general council" was in fact oikumenikos. You had asked earlier if Eusebius coined the phrase; I can't even be sure that he used it. If it does occur there, it would be a very early usage since he was writing in the first half of the 4th century, prior to the second council.

?Life of Constantine is only extant in Latin translation? If so, it should use the Latin equivalent: Oecumenicus. My guess is "general" is katholikes. If Eusebius used oikoumenikos I would think NPNF would have cited it.64.169.6.84 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we have it in Greek. [15] lists them under "Editions" (with possibly misleading Latin titles. It goes on to list Latin versions under "Translations".) There are several modern scholarly Greek editions as well.

Ah, found one! [16] but the pages aren't properly coded and you have to set encoding to Unicode manually to see the Greek properly. Eusebius indeed says, "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν". (Book 3, chapter VI.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! It's in the text too and not a section title which are often later additions. In addition, I found another likely reference, Athanasius, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica, year 369, chapter 2[17].64.169.0.43 01:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one NT usage: Luke 2:1 "απογραφεσθαι πασαν την οικουμενην" "all the world (oikoumene) should be enrolled". I doubt that was intended to cover the Parthians. :)TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at "The Orthodox Church by Fr. John Meyendorf (4th rev ed), and on page 24 where he discusses Constantine's summoning of the council he puts "ecumenical" in quotes, suggesting it was the word used in the decree. Unfortunately this is not sourced in the text. (A few pages later he complains about how vague the term "ecumenical" has become in modern usage, which is exactly our problem here.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes.64.169.6.84 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First you said that a council was not ecumenical unless it was given that tag by another council. Now you are throwing emperors into the definition as if something has to involve an emperor in order to be "consisting of a whole", or "general in extent". Emperors, presidents, prime ministers have no say in Church affaires. It doesn't matter if the term "ecumenical" didn't come about until the fourth century or the sixth century or whenever. It's a mere label for a concept. If Jerusalem fits the definition, then Jerusalem is an EC. All of this depends on who's criteria for "ecumenical" you use. You choose the Eastern Orthodox criteria, I choose the Catholic criteria. I am not the first to call Jerusalem Ecumenical. So this is not original research. I did not coin the term ecumenical, nor did I decide the criteria for ecumenical. I offered you a compromise, you refused it. Your position seems to be, 'The CoJ is not an EC because it doesn't fit modern Eastern Orthodox criteria.' I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. You have also refused to address some of my questions, so I'll try again. What was the definition of "ecumenical council" (and who defined it?) before the RC Church supposedly tagged it with their present definition? The RC Church never agreed that a council had to be called by an emperor for it to qualify as ecumenical. If the RC Church changed their original definition of ecumenical, then what was their original definition? I don't think it's ever changed. The RC Church would have never accepted a council as ecumenical if the Pope did not recognize it. You might argue that there has been no EC since the schism, but you have to admit that according to the RC Church, any council that was recognized by a Pope and issued decrees affecting the entire Church is an EC. By this criteria, JoC qualifies. My offer of compromise still stands.

Please stop pushing this. A consensus has to be reached. If you continue to ignore others and push your own view, it will get removed. It is clearly wrong to say that the Council of Jerusalem was the first Ecumenical Council without qualifying that statement. It would be wholly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article to take a minority opinion (which this is) and present it as the only classification. The realisation is that the world is not black and white — was it, or was it not, the first Ecumenical Council — but full of shades of grey. Please understand this, and work with other editors to get the most accurate shade of meaning in this article, as all I can see is whitewash at the moment. — Gareth Hughes 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"First you said that a council was not ecumenical unless it was given that tag by another council." -- Actually, I very carefully avoided saying that. I said that a council gains its authority when it's recognized by later councils. In practice we only number those councils that have been so recognized as "Ecumenical councils" under the theory that councils that have been repudiated (even if they were called by an emperor) were not valid councils at all.

Of course the Roman Catholics use different criteria, but they're in agreement with the East as to which the first seven councils were. So for the purposes of determining (from references, not reasoning on our own from vague criteria) which one was the first, it's a no-brainer. Look at the churches' lists. They're the same for the first seven, and list the same one as the first. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not stop pushing this until we reach a consensus. You cannot reach a consensus by ignoring the other point of view. The criteria of the RC Church has been ignored outright using spurious reasoning that seems to change when convenient. I was the one who changed the info box to reflect the compromise, then somebody replaced it again with 'none'. They still have not addressed my questions. I am not the one being unreasonable.

There is no consensus to be reached here. You have not provided a single reference that says Jerusalem was an Ecumenical Council. I have provided many that say Nicaea was the first. Whatever the definition you use of an Ecumenical Council -- and it has shifted over time and varies depending on who you're talking to, as is pointed out above -- the list of them is not seriously disputed. You want to choose "the Catholic criteria?" Please do. The Catholics say that Nicaea was the first EC, same as everyone else. (I have already provided a cite to this effect.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism

User:Csernica blindly reverted my edits, his/her summary said: "anti-semitism is really a side-issue; ie, the council's reasoning was not necessarily same as Constantine's". From what I can see, this Council acted upon Constantine's antisemitic speech, and antisemitism was the reason why Easter was played off against (hence "vs.") Passover. We have an evidence from Eusebius. If there is an evidence otherwise, let's see it, the burden is on you. I hope we can deal with this in mature and scholarly way without religious (or edit) wars. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong here. See Easter. The words for Easter and Passover cannot be distinguished in the language used by the Council; they were the same word, so it could scarcely have been possible to "play them off against" one another. The Fathers understood, as do Orthodox and Catholic Christians today, that "Easter" (if you speak English) is the Christian Passover. (Which is why in the Council's language a discussion of, say Christian Passover as distinct from Easter is a patent absurdity.)

I will agree that Constantine was anti-Semitic. The words we have quoted by Eusebius are his words, (possibly rephrased by Eusebius, who almost certainly shared his views anyway) not the Council's. And if we consult Eusebius directly, we find this was not from a speech to the Council, but from a letter Contantine sent out after the Council, so they could not have acted on these words even were they inclined to. The letter issued by the Council itself, separately from Constantine, says no such thing. I furthermore contend that "anti-Semitic" is an impossible charge to make against a Church that at the time contained a significant number of Semitic adherents.

Added: See Life of Constantine, Book 3 Chapters XVII-XX. Note how he ~~glosses over~~ totally ignores the issue of Arianism, which was actually the main preoccupation of the Council and its reason for convening, and focuses inordinately on the Easter question. That by itself should be sufficient to show he and the Council had different priorities. (00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Finally, if you really wanted to avoid an edit war you shouldn't have reverted me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the decision was to separate Jewish Passover from Easter (or Christian Passover if you prefer). As it stands now, the section title is cryptic and unclear.

You said "a letter Contantine sent out after the Council, so they could not have acted on these words even were they inclined to." - but according to Eusebius, the letter outlined the proceedings: "He also gave information of the proceedings of the synod to those who had not been present, by a letter in his own hand-writing."[18] So far we have an evidence of antisemitism vs. your POV.

We are not discussing the Council's priorities and its reason for convening. We have an evidence that Contantine's speech was antisemitic and the Council's decisions influenced the life (i.e. institutionalized oppression) of the European Jews for centuries ahead. If anti-Arianism was in the mix, so be it: one does not negate the other.

Please explain your partial removal of the quote.

Blind reverts may work against vandalism, this is not it. I believe that properly titled, quoted and categorized knowledge improves an encyclopedia and serves understanding and reconciliation. Let's try to assume good faith and cooperate to improve WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I take your points in order below. This was originally composed as a series of in-line responses, but that looked too confusing.

-The holidays already were celebrated separately, and in most places (the notable exceptions being certain local churches in Anatolia) were already observed on different days. This merely attempted -- not entirely successfully -- to make the difference uniform. However, I agree with this statement about the section title even if I don't agree with your proposed solution.

-This originally responded to your "vs.... what?" instead of your present uncivil response. Not vs. "my POV", but vs. what the Council itself actually said about its decisions. Has a politician never put a spin on an issue for his own purposes? Compare the synodal letter with Constantine's letter; there's a drastic difference in emphasis.

-But we are discussing what the Council decided and their actual reasons for doing so versus how someone else (present, but not directly involved in the discussions) characterized it. That Constantine oppressed Jews is probable. His reasons for so doing may have had to do with his personal religious beliefs (almost certainly shared by others) but that it was a result of this Council cannot be shown. "Anti-Arianism" wasn't "in the mix", it was the Council's raison d'etre. You make it sound as if it were a side-issue. It would be if you went by Constantine's letter; he doesn't even mention it. On the other hand, the Council took special care that its decision in the matter be known, both in its letter and in the Symbol of Faith it issued, neither of which shows any evidence of anti-Semitism.

-What was there was sufficient for illustrating the point that was being made.

That was not a blind revert, it was a revert with good reasons that I have now explained at length. I object strenuously to this mischaracterization. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems we agree that a better section title is possible. I am enumerating the remaining points, but please, lets not make this personal.

Re: Council's decisions:
- The Council of Necaea was summoned by the Emperor Constantine in 325 CE to settle the Arian dispute about the person of Christ. The Emperor himself, though unbaptised, presided and the orthodox party had the victory. Christ was declared co- equal and co-eternal with the Father. The Arian heresy that declared that Christ was neither true G-d nor a true man was defeated. Constantine had achieved his aim: to weld the Empire into a Christian spiritual block for political reasons. One of Constantine's first official acts had been to ban Jewish proselytism as dangerous competition to the Church. This was flagrant inequality. Christians were free to evangelise but Jews were forbidden to increase their membership. The context in which the prohibition appears is significant. It constitutes the second part of a law which aimed to protect Jews who converted to Christianity from reprisals inflicted by their coreligionists.[19]
- 325: Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicaea[20]
- He opposed heresies, notably Donatism and Arianism, and he convoked the important Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The Council of Nicaea was attended by 318 bishops. There were about twenty Jewish bishops and none of them were invited to the Council.[21]
- All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy... [22]
Antisemitism is just that, and reasons don't matter. Whatever personal, religious, economic, political, ignorance, hatred, etc. - the result was persecution of the entire ethno-religious group for centuries.
Let's sum up: On one hand we have evidence that the Council's descision was influenced by Constantine's clearly antisemitic speech (documented by Eusebius as "the proceedings of the synod"). The measures were taken against heretics and guess who were counted as heretics. On the other hand we have a incomplete translation (explanation) of the letter cited by Gelasius. I don't see how this can negate the evidence above and I don't see anything uncivil about saying correctly "your POV" when you do not present evidence that there was no antisemitism in the FCN. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That the council was summoned by Constantine and that he presided is not in dispute. That he took the part primarily of a mediator is evident from Socrates Scholarius ([23] etc.) However, one doesn't have to read too many of the letters of his quoted here and in Eusebius before one gets the impression that he wasn't particularly interested in the theological issues. He never mentions them, he only attempts to enforce the decisions. He was so uninterested in the results that his deathbed baptism was performed by an Arian bishop. (See Arianism). One cannot sustain the idea that the council was much beholden to him or that its decisions were directed by him. It therefore can't be shown with any consistency that he "opposed Arianism" qua Arianism. He was intersted in keeping order, and only opposed it to the extent it was a source of disorder. See [24] from Socrates in particular.
That Constantine himself passed discriminatory laws agains the Jews, for whatever reason, is not in dispute.
That the date of Pascha was that set for the Passover by the Jews -- this is simply a description. (Not all mention of Jews is ispo facto anti-Semitic; nor is all disagreement with Judaism.) This had been a bone of contention for centuries, and anti-Semitism was simply not at the root of it. (See [25] which also indicates the document in question was Constantine's composition alone and made after the fact.) This is simply the endpoint of the argument, and most churches had by that time adopted the Roman usage.
I dispute your source for the assertion that the Council forbade the clergy to have "conversation and fellowship with the Jews". Primary sources take precedence over secondary and tertiary sources. The instruments for regulating clerical behavior are the canons. Nicaea passed 20 canons; they start here: [26]. Show me where this rule exists. (Added: Actually, I now see where they got this from. There are suprious collections of Nicene canons that make out there were as many as 80 of them, and this is one of them. See canon 52 at [27]. However, see [28] for a discussion of the true number of Nicene canons. These have been shown to be not genuine.)
No matter how Eusebius chose to characterize Constantine's letter, it remains true (and Eusebuis even says so) that this is a production of Constantine alone. It is not said that it is a document approved by the Council. One cannot therefore characterize the Council as anti-Semitic based on this document alone. That is a misreading of the sources.
Again: that letter was not a speech made to the Council. Eusebius doesn't even say it was. The continued claim that it was flies in the face of the sources. That he made a speech is accepted; its content according to Eusebius[29] and Socrates[30] was that it was an exhortation to unity and harmony, not an anti-Semitic screed.
So let's sum up: We have no evidence that Constantine influenced the Council's decisions in any way. Whatever measures were taken against heretics as a result of imperial decrees based on the Council were remarkably ineffectual since the controversy went on for another several decades and the Emperor himself was baptized by one of them. (These heretics were Arians, not Jews, so this is neither here nor there for anti-Semitism.) (By the way, your cite does not establish that the synodal letter was incomplete. We have another copy of it in Socrates anyway. [31]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, the council prohibiting Jewish-Christian relations was the 306 Synod of Elvira [32], also, in regards to variability in the Early Church, Socrates 5[33] and Sozomen 7[34].

Wow, some of those look seriously flaky. The note at the top tells us that only the first 21 are authentic to that council, and the only regulation among them prohibits intermarriage. But even the others don't go so far as to prohibit all contact, as the spurious "Canon 52" of Nicaea does. In any event, Elvira was never received by the universal Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Above I copy-pasted the text to provide context, but you seem to have cherry-picked the sentences unrelated to our dispute. What Constantine "wasn't particularly interested in the theological issues" doesn't matter. Please be so kind to explain what is not anti-Semitic below:

Speech by the Emperor Constantine: "... the Jews, ... have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."
FCN legalized Christianity in the Empire. No Jewish bishops were invited. Judaism officially became a heresy.
Conversion of Christians to Judaism was outlawed while Christians continued to proselytize. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this reply. For clarity, 209.78.21.228's post below is re: the prior post by Humus sapiens above, not this one.

Again, according to the ancient sources this was not a speech. Please stop saying it was without proof. It was not an official document of the council, it was a letter written by Constantine. All it proves was that Constantine was anti-Semitic, which is not in dispute.
This hardly requires a reply following 209.78.21.228 below, but the premise is fatally flawed anyway. The Council had no power on its own to enact civil law. It's true that its decrees were enacted into civil law by the Emperor, but the reverse (that all civil laws were a result of the Council) is not even remotely true. As far as relations were concerened: Judaism and Christianity had always disagreed on key issues, and had always believed each other to be in error. This is why they were, and at the time had been for a couple of centuries, separate sects or factions. ("faction"="heresy"[35]. The feeling was totaly mutual.) I questioned your source below, but please do say what you mean by "Jewish bishops". The episcopacy is a distinctively Christian office. Do you mean ethnically Semitic bishops? In that case, this statement is even more questionable than it appears on the surface. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is a civil law that cannot be shown to result from the Council. (Or at least nothing has been cited to show that it did.)

You have valid points, but they are not relevant to the First Council of Nicaea. Constantine's statement above is antisemitic, take it up at Constantine the Great, in fact there should be a section, Constantine the Great#Antisemitism. The notion of "legalizing Christianity" is inaccurate. The 313 Edict of Milan ended Persecution of Christians, the 390 edict of Theodosius the Great made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Empire. Jewish bishops? You mean Jewish Christian bishops? Were there any? Judaism officially became a heresy? Prior to Theodosius' edict, Judaism was a recognized religion, however it was certainly persecuted by the state and taxed as early as the First Jewish-Roman War. I think it was Theodosius' edict that made Judaism illegal, as well as any religion other than Nicene Christianity.209.78.21.228 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Even if we leave Constantine's antisemitic statement out (which I think would be wrong), this leaves us 2 points, both are discriminatory:

"The Council of Nicaea was attended by 318 bishops. There were about twenty Jewish bishops and none of them were invited to the Council."[36]
Conversion of Christians to Judaism was outlawed while Christians continued to proselytize.[37] ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantine's statement is in this article, in the section on Easter controversy. As for your other claims, they may be plausable, however, wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources, just a web site claim won't cut it, the web is notoriously inaccurate.63.201.25.10 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a bit more than an unsourced statement in a clearly partisan web page to support the statement that no "Jewish" (whatever that means in this context) bishops were invited. Other sources state that all the bishops were invited, 1800 in all. Something like 300 actually attended. If anything, it was the Western church that was under-represented, with only 5 bishops and two priests. This is unfortunately not footnoted in the article and I can't find a source for it online, so I'll see if I can source it from a book later. (It may well be that no "Jewish" bishops attended, but obviously most bishops did not attend.)

The other issues, while true, are matters of civil law and not relevant to the Council. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish bishops" is not my expression, and I myself dislike it. I guess those were leaders of Jewish converts to Christianity. As you probably know, at that early period Ch-ty was a Jewish sect. Until a WP:RS is found, I concede this point.

I dispute "matters of civil law and not relevant to the Council" because the separation of church and state doesn't seem plausible in 325.

More on Easter vs. Passover: "The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[38]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The official religion of the Roman Empire was still paganism at the time, and Constantine still held the title "Pontifex Maximus", the high priest of the Roman religion. Christianity did not become the Empire's state religion until the reign of Theodosius.

As for the rest, I forgot to look the subject up in more up-to-date sources when I had the chance. (Pelikan is a modern widely recognized standard.) I notice Schaff bases his conclusion on the same letter you're citing. If it's supported elsewhere I'll concede it -- but if so, then it's a new factor in the discussion. Anti-Semitism had not been a factor in the controversy in earlier times. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, if I remember correctly, Irenaeus defended the Quartodecimans in the 2nd century, at that time it was largely a Roman versus Eastern debate. However, it would appear that by the time of Nicaea, it was an issue of rejecting anything Jewish. The most anti-Jewish letter seems to be the one recorded in Theodoret 1.9 The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. ... Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. ... Let us ... studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. ... lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. ... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. ... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."209.78.23.142 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the same letter that's been quoted here repeatedly, and is the only evidence of anti-Semitism presented. To me it still proves nothing except that Constantine was anti-Semitic, which I do not dispute. The oldest source for the letter is Eusebius; everyone else who quotes it is quoting him.

I still feel that attributing anti-Semitism to the entire council, where there are no antecedents for it related to the issue in question, based on a letter from a single peripherally involved party with his own agenda and quoted by a frank toady of a biographer, is scarcely justifyable. However, Schaff seems to think it sufficient. Since the historical resources currently available to me focus on the development of dogma and are silent on this subject, I will concede the point for the time being as I said I would. We must rely on the references we have, after all. However, I will bring this up again if I turn up a more modern historical analysis. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

TCC, thanks for being reasonable. Note that "a single peripherally involved party" was the Roman Emperor (BTW some editors at Constantine I (emperor) talk) deny that he expressed antisemitism, directly contradicting what you wrote above. If you don't want to particpate in that talk, I understand.)

To remove the tag, I suggest we retitle and tidy up this section. It is unclear what the "controversy" was about: the Quartodecimans? The motives for separation? The calculations? Finally, what do you propose for the new title? I think "Separation of Easter from the Jewish Passover" is concise and NPOV but would welcome your ideas.

Sidenote. To improve this article otherwise, all the section titles need to comply with WP:NC. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Either your suggested title or something along the lines of "Calculation of Easter date" would work, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Former featured article attempt

I saw that this article was rejected for featured article status. I tried to fix some of the defects - the citations now are all in footnote form, the sections on the schisms are expended, and I added a conclusion along with some other minor fixes. Does anyone think there's something else to be done here before trying for featured status again? --Coemgenus 00:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I nominated this article a couple of weeks ago, there have been few comments. Does anyone who watches this page care to add his two cents? You can click the link above to check out the nomination process thus far. --Coemgenus 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a few comments... --Nino Gonzales 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1st ecumenical council?

According to Warren Carroll in Vol 2 of A History of Christendom:

"The recommendation for a general or "ecumenical" council -- the first in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem which had established the basis for joining Gentiles to the Mystical Body of Christ -- had probably already been made to Constantine by Ossius, and most probably to Pope Silvester as well." (p. 11)

Are we saying that the Apostolic Council was not ecumenical?--Nino Gonzales 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a lengthy discussion about it, here. --Coemgenus 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Got any Wikipedia:Reliable sources that say the Council of Jerusalem was ecumenical? 209.78.18.54 21:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above, it seems that being ecumenical is just a matter of opinion or tradition... and it seems the Council of Jerusalem is generally not considered ecumenical. Technically, I suppose it is, since it involved the whole of the Church at that time; but it seems it isn't usually part of any Ecumenical Council list by the Church or by historians... that is, from the discussion above...--Nino Gonzales 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Info box: Presided by:

It currently says St. Alexander of Alexandria. Is this correct? The Catholic Encyclopedia First Council of Nicaea says "The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius."

It says in the article:

"Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."^[1]

Warren Carroll says it's Ossius/Hosius...--Nino Gonzales 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Arianism after Nicaea

It might be good to put a sentence or two about the resurgence of Arianism after the Council of Nicaea.--Nino Gonzales 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First vernal full moon?

Csernica reverted my change on the date of Christian Passover from the first Sunday after the spring equinox to the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring with the comment, " 'Spring' hasn't always been clearly defined in history." Was Philip Schaff also wrong when he said, as quoted in the article, "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated ... on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon"? Or is the objection only to the word spring? Is "the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox" correct? --teb728 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to take Schaff in context. He was writing in terms to be understood by an essentially modern American audience. "First vernal full moon" means both the first full moon after the Spring equinox and the first full moon of Spring -- but although these are synonymous, the latter clearly applies only in modern terms. The seasons were not so clearly defined in former eras, and when they were they were not the same as they are now. Take, for example the Midsummer Day celebrations still found in much of Europe, especially Scandanavia. They are held on the same day they've always been held, at the summer solstice -- what we now consider to be the first day of summer! I have no idea what was conventionally considered the beginning of Spring in the Roman Empire in AD 325. So even though "first full moon of spring" isn't actually wrong, it's imprecise. And in point of fact the Nicene decision is always taken to mean the first full moon after the vernal equinox. See [39] [40] [41] and others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"The first Sunday after the first full moon of spring" may be imprecise. But unless I am missing something, the reverted version, "the first Sunday after the spring equinox," is wrong--by a week or more--three year out of four. That is because about three years of four, one or more Sundays occur between the vernal equinox and and the full moon. --teb728 03:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why the date of Easter can vary between 22 March and 25 April inclusive, on the Gregorian calendar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But the article as you reverted it specifies a date between 22 March and 28 March (because it does not refer to the full moon (except in the Schaff quotation)). Since you don't like my correction to the article, make your own. As it stands, the article is wrong. --teb728 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I had failed to notice for some reason that the article as reverted didn't mention the moon. (There are other problems with those passages, but they touch on subjects I have resolved not to dispute in this context.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Arian controversy section finishes with a non-neutral POV

The statement "The Council confirmed that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal" should be changed to "The Council concluded that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal".

Common usage of confirmed: To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. Common usage of concluded: To bring to an end; close. To bring about (a final agreement or settlement).

The council did not in any way establish a certainty in this manner, not even the entire Christian community (who were not evenly represented) agreed before or after. This was, rather, an agreement to settle the issue for Christians that accepted the First Council of Nicaea.

To claim that the essence of Jesus was confirmed at the First Council of Nicaea is not a neutral point of view, it is an assumption that they reached a truth, rather than the reality that they reached agreement. This is a minor point but essential for NPOV, you can go to the abortion page and say that X, Y and Z Bible references are used to conclude that abortion is murder, but you cannot go there and say that X, Y and Z Bible referneces confirm that abortion is murder. Sad mouse 01:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Both the current phrasing of the article and the example you use here are POV statements.

The Christian churches say that the Council merely affirmed that which had been believed all along; if it "concluded" anything it was about the best way to express this belief. If you insist on "concluded" with regard to the belief itself, you're contradicting this claim.

It's a tautology to say that it only decided for those Christians who accepted its decisions, so I'm not sure what your point is there. Obviously, no force in the world can prevent someone from rejecting Nicaea while continuing to call himself a Christian. But one could not be a member of that church called "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" in the creed if you rejected it.

I do wish you'd selected a less controversial supporting illustration because it will become far too easy to get into a side-debate about it -- but I have to admit its a similar situation. The truth is that the Church has always taught that abortion is murder whenever the issue has come up. One can use Bible verses to confirm this if you like -- "support" would be a better word -- but the teaching exists with those verses or without. No Tradition may contradict the Bible, but a Tradition need not refer to the Bible for its ultimate source, which is believed to be the words of Christ or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in any case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense - if "they believed it all along" they wouldn't have needed to debate it, would they? "To bring to an end; close. To bring about (a final agreement or settlement)" is by far a more accurate description of a Council which closed a question that was a raging debate in early Christianity. If you don't like concluded, then use declared (To make known formally or officially; to state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm) or another word that doesn't have the overwhelming connetation that they formally proved their position. Concluded/declared/etc are NPOV, and I don't understand what you dislike about them - look at the article on Jesus "Most Christians are Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is simultaneously the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity". This is NPOV. If you were to say that "It was confirmed that Jesus is simultaneously the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity at the Council of Nicaea" that is a religious belief and by any definition, POV. Sad mouse 07:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, look at the next sentence: "This decision was enforced by the Nicene Creed [emphasis added]". Confirmation = finding; conclusion = decision. The article has to be consistent in the NPOV status. Sad mouse 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be the claim of the "Christian churches ... that the Council merely affirmed that which had been believed all along" however there is no reason for a wikipedia article to assume such obvious POV.63.201.27.144 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also no reason for a Wikipedia article to assert the opposite, which is also non-NPOV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosopon - Word meaning

I have studied Ancient Greek, and I noticed in the article under Arian controversy that the word "prosopon" is used for person. I thought that the correct meaning of prosopon was "face" not "person." Could someone explain why this word is used? > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Prosopon", in the sense of an actor's mask, was a term used in Sabellianism to describe their view of the Trinity, but this view was rejected. The term under discussion for Nicaea, although it does not explicitly appear in the Creed, was "hypostasis", which does not bear precisely the same meaning for the Nicaeans as it does in classical philosophy. "Prosopon" became used as a kind of gloss on "hypostasis", although distinguished from the Sabellian meaning, and it translates into Latin as "persona" which has the same literal sense. This is the etymological ancestor to the English language "person" -- although "person" is understood in a sense much closer to "hypostasis" as the Nicaeans intended it than "prosopon" in its original sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That clears things up a bit. And thanks for the history lesson XD > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

DVC section

I've altered the recently added DVC-debunk section in the following ways:

1, removed the claim that Jesus proclaimed his own divinity. This assumes that A) the Gospels are accurate; B) that, even if they are, Jesus's recorded rather equivocal statements are unambiguously to be interpreted that way. 2. Removed the claim about "contemporary historians such as Pliny". This implies multiple testimony at this date, which is misleading. Anyway, even Pliny's phrasing is a little ambiguous ("as if to a god"). 3. Changed statement that Pliny "acknowleged" Jesus's divinity, which, no doubt unintentionally, gave the impression that Pliny was a Christian. Paul B 07:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) --Elonka 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Current events

Mr. Brown's novel is just that, a work of fiction. I am surprised Wikipedia would devote space to discussion of it's historical merits. Perhaps one of the editors would be kind enough to explain the rational to a new user. Mcdand 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tammuz and other matters

Can we explain how Constantine actually made up this council? I mean didn't he fall down and looked at the symbol of Chratos (the god of time) around his neck which is the depiction of the cross used today? Also, how he brought together the 3 parts of Rome to believe in Multiple Gods, The God of Spirit, The God of Flesh, and The God Creator? Which the council of Nicea, without the spin of religion, truley was bringing together the 3 parts, the Jews, The Christians, and The Pagans. The Christians that believed in Christ(Majority of them Dead in Rome due to Nero), the Jews who refused Christ(but the majority of them dead due to Nero about 80 or more years back) and the Pagans who insistantly controlled Rome. I believe this article was written on a biased basis, skewing it to be religious propoganda.

It was indeed written with a bias, but it's modern SDA or something similar. I'm sorry it doesn't fit with the agenda you wish to promote, and I reverted the uncited changes that tried to drag it in that direction. Tammuz was a Babylonian god and did not have a significant cult in Rome. All Nicaea really did wrt Pascha was to shift it to a Sunday. This cannot have had the synchronizing effect you describe. There was also very small representation from Rome at this council, which was much less politically relevant than it had been earlier, or later under the Papacy as it developed in ensuing centuries.

Nero? 80 years earlier? Try over 250 years earlier. The Church had grown quite a bit since then. The more recent persecutions under Diocletian made Nero's look like a garden party, and there were still thousands of Christians throughout the Empire who held onto their faith in defiance of it. Any claim that Constantine strongly altered Christianity has to somehow cope with that fact. How could he manage it when Diocletian failed? It's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence that is never provided. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom Comments

You all are to be congratulated on a very nicely done article. It thorough, NPOV, in plain English. I am a fairly new reviewer, so I have to resolve an issue on stability. (I don't think vandalism should count against it, but I've asked to be safe) If I am right, I intend to promote this article to GA status.

One thing that, in the mean time, would help, would be some effort to remove the red links. Ideally, we would have short articles created, linked, categorized and marked with the stub of choice. Barring that, please just delink them. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that vandalism and reverts do not count against an article's GA status. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

Congratulations! This article has passed. It is a very well done essay. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code section

Regarding this section moved here:

== References in popular culture ==

The First Council began achieving a great deal of notoriety in 2003, after it was referred to in Dan Brown's controversial bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. The novel's claim, via a key conversation between characters Leigh Teabing and Sophie Neveu, was that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. [His] establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." The book went on to state that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote at the Council, and "a relatively close vote at that." The novel claims that Emperor Constantine convened and influenced this vote in order to help consolidate his own power.

In reality, the novel's claims are disputed^{[citation needed]} by some historians, who point out multiple examples indicating that Jesus' divinity was asserted almost immediately after his death by the apostles.^[2] Contemporary secular historian Pliny the Younger documented observations of Christians, who "sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god." ^[3] The commonly-accepted view by most historians is that Constantine did convene the Council to help bring about peace and, in order to achieve that political goal, to clarify some diverging views about Jesus (such as whether or not he was "made" or "begotten"), but that there were no "votes" at the Council -- it was more of a discussion, to produce a written "Creed of Nicaea", which was then signed by all but three of the hundreds of participants. ^[4]

Nevertheless, controversy around the pseudohistorical novel (which claimed to be presenting "facts" about history) has sparked a number of books, television documentaries, and statements by the church, to debate and debunk its various claims.

This section has gotten out of hand. It really has little to do with the First Council of Nicaea, and is a discussion already covered much better in much more length at Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. I could see a one or two sentence neutral pointer to the main article perhaps, but not this lengthy explanation when we already have a huge article on the subject. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe just a sentence or two and a redirect to the main Da Vinci Code article. It really doesn't belong on a serious history page. --Coemgenus 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. [His] establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." The book went on to state that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote at the Council, and "a relatively close vote at that." The novel claims that Emperor Constantine convened and influenced this vote in order to help consolidate his own power."

LMFAO

Doctor Who

I came here to add a note on the Council in popular culture, but it seems that there has been a Davinci-code-related mess around here lately. :-P

What I wanted to add was the fact that the council served as the setting of the Doctor Who audio drama, The Council of Nicaea, in which some time travellers find themselves getting involved with the Council's events. Since it looks like work needs to be done on the pop culture section, and I don't really know enough about the Council or the Davinci code stuff to mess with it, I'll just leave this note here. Hopefully, someone more familiar with this article and willing to work on it can add the info in future. Rob T Firefly 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A few proposed edits

I was looking over this article and I noticed some inconsistencies that I thought ought to be pointed out.

In the third paragraph, the following quote is given: "Further, 'Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church.'[2]" To start with, Constantine did not preside over the council as is noted in the last paragraph of the "Attendees" section. Also, this statement as-is would give a false sense that the government and the church were already intertwined at this point - which is hardly possible considering that the Edict of Milan, which ended legal persecution of Christians, had only been given a few years prior. Since this quote has an obvious mistake and also hints at another falsehood, I would suggest that it is either prefaced by "Further, some historians feel that" or done away with altogether and replaced by a less ambiguous statement like "Further, Constantine's role in the council was an indicator of future imperial countrol over the church." Otherwise the reader is left feeling like Constantine controlled the proceedings of the Council - something that is obviously false.

There is a blanket statement made in the first paragraph of the "Character and Purpose" section that bears examination: "to Constantine, any division in the Church was a threat to the unity of the Roman Empire". Remember that the Edict of Milan had only been given a few short years before - Christianity was not by any means the official religion of the Roman Empire! Divisions in Christian thought would hardly be a threat to the Roman Empire. Not only does this statement give the reader the impression that the Empire was already under the grip of the Roman Catholic Church, but it also suggests that Constantine was the "spiritual leader" of Christianity at the time and so he felt threatened by division in Christian thought - which further suggests that perhaps he manipulated the Council. This whole underlying thread that magnifies Constantine's involvement in the Council comes very close to violating NPOV and/or WP:NOT. I would suggest ommitting this statement altogether or changing it so that it conforms with WP policy.

Finally, I would suggest adding "No record of an actual dissent by these bishops exist; their signatures are simply absent from the final draft of the Nicene Creed." to the last paragraph of the "Agenda and Procedure" section. We have no record that these bishops actually dissagreed; we just don't have their signatures. If someone can provide such a record of an actual dissent, then obviously this is irrelevant. But otherwise that change should be made.

Any other ideas? standonbible 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First, we do know that Constantine was present and presided; various documents from the time support this. Second, The numbers and the relative dissent have to be taken with a grain of salt. George Bush's razor thin election margin against Al Gore is not something he or his supporters probably like to bring up on a regular basis. Give an institution hundreds-thousands of years to prune history and spin, and even poisoning (Arius), election rigging (Nicaea), and political- religious maniuplation can easily be whitewashed. 24.247.157.122 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Constantine baptism

Someone changed the article and said it's not verifiable that Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop. I don't know? But what does the source say. Mammalian 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how reliable the Catholic Encyclopedia is but it says that Constantine's conversion and baptism are "entirely legendary". Wayne (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire

In the Philosopical Dictionary, Voltaire says that a supplement of the First Council of Nicaea contains the report that those assembled there were also troubled as to which were the proper books of the Old and New Testaments and, so, all of the books were piled up on an altar in no particular order and those which fell off were rejected. Is there any source for this?

He also says that in a chronicle from Alexandria which is preserved at Oxford 2,000 priests protested the main decision of the Council. He adds, but does not give a source, that seventeen bishops also protested. Alipius 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict

This page says that only 2 bishops voted for Arianism, but on that page it says that three did. Which is correct, or have I misunderstood? Larklight 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Both are correct in what they're trying to say, but Arianism is clearer and more complete. Three bishops refused to sign the Creed, which is not the same thing as voting for Arianism. Two bishops who signed the Creed refused to sign the condemnation of Arius. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)