Christianity: Was the divinity of Christ decided at Nicea?

[PriestBoy11]

What about Deuteronomy 4:15-19, I guess that doesnt mean anything right? This actually shows us that God warned us not to compare His likeness with anything in this world because His likeness is like nothing in this world and when we worship Jesus as God, we worship a man, an image of God, which with His likeness should not be compared to.

[grammastola]

Follow up...

As for your question regarding polytheism, it's a very interesting question, but it's unrelated to the subject of this video. I prefer to keep the discussions on topic, for obvious reasons.

If I ever get around to creating a video which discusses that topic, please feel free to pose that question. In the meantime, there are plenty of fora on the 'net that would welcome your inquiry... and who knows? I might even come across you at one of them.

[Cootabux]

Why did you not allow comments on your other videos? I had some serious questions and points to make. I don't know why someone would do that unless they were afraid of public criticism.

I appreciate your defending of this religion, but I disagree that it was inspired by god. I've spent much effort studying the origin of Judaism. I'd like to ask you a question. If u discovered that Judaism was originally polytheistic & later reconstructed to be monotheistic, what would that mean to Christianity?

[grammastola]

@Cootabux I have allowed comments on all of my videos, but I closed comments on some of them after a while. This was mainly due to the need for proper time management on my part, plus the fact that the same old comments were being posted over and over. In other words, the discussions had run their course.

Really, it's not appropriate to assume that anyone who closes the comments section is just afraid of public criticism. If that were so, then I wouldn't have allowed comments on any of them.

[Magnulus76]

BTW, in response to an earlier comment, many Protestant denominations fully accept the Ecumenical Councils authority, though some qualify this in reference to the primacy of Scriptures. The Council of Nicea, the way I see it, is not open to question if you want to be an orthodox Christian. Nicea is fundamental, even Chalcedon is extremely important (though it is now possible to take the miaphysite/one-nature position and be orthodox, that was reconciled, though it's still considered ugly).

[Magnulus76]

Arianism was rejected in the end becaues it was obtuse and would also make salvation through Christ logically impossible. It also would have implications for ideas, like reducing Christianity to moralism. The Nicene council's conclusions are actually coherent, provided one understands Greek metaphysics and the distinction between uncreated (no beginning within time) and created (beginning within time). "Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".

[3457lkande1]

There is no trinity there is only 1 the rest are a part of god only man has made his lust manafest the SON of YA said we know what we worship,meaning the father is to be worshiped not man on earth.All sights have been miss guided.

[mandau76]

the truth about trinity that they misconcept is 1father= God almighty the creator 2 son= jesus the mesenger of God 3 holy spirit= angel gabriel how come angel gabriel same as God and jesus and jesus same as God and angel gabriel and God same as jesus and angel gabriel. how adam made by God is he have father and mother? do god talks to other god u are god but i far greater then u. no i far greater u at the end a war at the heaven to strive for the God's thrones. who is paul and barnabas.

[graceinmay]

this is an awesome, thoughtful video. thank you very much for posting it Sir, and God bless you and keep using you.

[jamesms4]

Dude, you are not Catholic (too bad ;-) ). What denominational label if any would you put on yourself? Cheers!

[grammastola]

"But why would a Protestant argue over the ecumenical counsels anyhow? What makes them ecumenical & authoritative to you?"

In this context, the word 'ecumenical' means that they were councils of all the Christian churches. In today's society, of course, that word more typically denotes apostate alliances.

BTW, I don't claim that the Nicean council is necessarily authoritative. That's why I cited John 1:1-3. Rather, I sought to correct a common error about what was decided at Nicea.

[grammastola]

Incidentally, you'll need to be more specific if you're going to claim that there was a "larger counsel that preceeded Nicea that decided in favor of the Aryans." (BTW, it's "Arians.") I think you may be confused on this issue.

BTW, it's untrue that most bishops were Arians back then. In fact, Theonas and Secundus were the only ones who sided with Ariuas at the Nicean Council.

[VictorLepanto]

In fact, I believe the very term "trinity" was first used by a Church Father in the 2nd cent. Many passages of the Fathers also show a clear trinitarian teaching. But why would a Protestant argue over the ecumenical counsels anyhow? What makes them ecumenical & authoritative to you? You should read John Henry Newman on Nicea & the whole Aryan controversy generally. There was another larger counsel that preceeded Nicea that decided in favor of the Aryans. The majority of bishops were Aryan then.

[ocpud2999]

Theophilus of Antioch. Was the Bishop who first wrote about the trinity. FYI

[grammastola]

Well, Theophilus was indeed the first one to use the word "Trinity" (AD 181), but I wouldn't take that to mean that he was the first to write about it. A lot of the writings of the early church fathers -- especially the apostolic fathers -- have been lost to time, so we can't really make that claim.

[ocpud2999]

I agree with that. The bible is very clear christ is God. The trinity is very evident. When you do the further break down of christology you will find that God and Jesus Share the exact things

Jesus shares the Honors of God

Jesus shares the Attributes of God

Jesus shares the Names of God

Jesus shares the Deeds of God

Jesus shares the Seat of God

Even throughout curch history the concept of the trinity was understood by the church father. Look at Polycarp Writtings. Very evident.

[beesbop]

Well, there isn't any actual proof that Jesus ever existed let alone God. The Bible is a fictional story book because it can't be substantiated, and faith is not hard evidence, so we can use that. But there is hard evidence in Egyptian writing which does describes what I have already said. Christianity has its own slant and thats true but on basically the EXACT same points.

[grammastola]

"Well, there isn't any actual proof that Jesus ever existed let alone God."

Wait a minute. I asked you to substantiate your claim that the story about Jesus is "the exact same story in over 20 other religions many of them pagan." Why are you changing the topic all of a sudden? (BTW, you still haven't substantiated your claim. Cite sources, please.)

FTR, virtually every historian DOES acknowledge that there is much evidence that Jesus existed. GA Wells disagrees, but he's not a historian.

[grammastola]

BTW, beebop, it is completely untrue that Christianity has "basically the EXACT same points" as Egyptian mythology. There are some parallels between Jesus and Osiris, for example, but these are tenuous, superficial parallels at best. Osiris was not born of a virgin, for example, nor was he heralded as a Messiah. He was not resurrected either, except insofar as he was pieced back and zombified.

This is covered extensively at the Tektonics website, BTW.

[sinistavoicez]

actually my brother osiris was born of a virgin. Osiris also was resurrected in 3 days, he also had 12 followers. also had 3 kings present at his birth, also was born in a major. all in all there are 133 similarities, but don't believe me do the research. also look serapis christus on wikipedia who's followers were called christians in 327 bce. do your homework or shutup the choice is yours

[grammastola]

"actually my brother osiris was born of a virgin. Osiris also was resurrected in 3 days..."

Untrue. First, it was Horus who is alleged by some to have been born of a virgin -- and even that claim is not corroborated by any ancient sources. These alleged parallels are thoroughly debunked at the Tektonics website.

Moreover, even if your claim were true, it still would not disprove what my video says -- namely, that Christ's divinity was taught LONG BEFORE the Council of Nicea.

[joshhussung]

"The Bible is a fictional story book because it can't be substantiated."

Strange logic. Substantial evidence might PROVE something to be true, but does not make it true.

[grammastola]

"The Christian story, born of a virgin mother,... its the exact same story in over 20 other religions many of them pagan"

First of all, even if we grant that claim, it does not disprove what I said in this video.

And second, would you care to substantiate your claim that this is the SAME EXACT story, as you claim? Not even Mithraism (the parallels to Christianity of which have been greatly exaggerated) comes anywhere close to this level of supposed parallelism!

[japanamayshunx]

***ROMANS 1:20***

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Father-Son-Spririt=One True God

Body-Soul-Spirit=Human Being

Solid-Liquid-Gas=Matter

Past-Present-Future=Time

Height-Width-Depth=Space

Matter-Space-Time=Physical Reality

SolidH20-LiquidH20-GasH20=Wate­rH20

The Designers Awesome Design in His Creation, The Concept of 3 in 1

[japanamayshunx]

Good stuff bro,

Praise Yahweh God Yahshua Hammashiach Jesus Christ!

I'm also engaged apologetically against Muslims, Cultist and other non believers about the concept of the Holy Trinity being pagan. The Council of Nicea is a Favorite argument for them.

you probably know this already,

But there is a Great Defense for the Christians: The Designers Awesome Design in His Creation-The Creation Itself!

[grammastola]

ozzieISLAM says, "Jesus(PBUH)was the messenger of God. The early followers didnt consider Jesus(pbuh)to be divivne."

You assertion are simply incorrect.  John 1, among other texts, show that the divinity of Christ was taught LONG BEFORE the Council of Nicea.

And even if your assertions were true, it still would not substantiat the assertion that his divinity was introduced at Nicea.

[THM41]

They voted down "Arianism" and then "paganized" Jesus, Holidays, and Christianity in general. Why we celebrate Christmas and Easter on pagan holidays and go to church on Sundady instead of Saturday (the Sabbath).

[cesra00]

Grammastola, I have seen many of your videos, and I have so far agreed with everything you have said. I usually find this knowledge from Roman Catholics or very unique Protestants or ex protestants. I with much respect would like to inquire about your denomination. Sorry if it has been stated elsewhere.

[grammastola]

I'm a former Catholic. I am now a conservative non-denominational evangelical.

[Marcello777]

Very well put brother. I got into a debate about the Council of Nicea with a Muslim not too long ago. Me and an other Catholic fellow both discussed it with him. We showed him evidence that the Trinity was tough long before Nicea and it wasn't invented there, it was just written in stone.

[grammastola]

Philos2006 says, "Secondly that a vote took place about the nature of god. Which is in itself a blasphemy."

This is honestly one of the most childish objctions that you've raised so far. The presbyters didn't claim that their vote would alter or create the nature of God. Rather, they came to a decision about what they should be teaching.

Perhaps you'd say that the clergy should be free to teach whatever they want. In fact, they could -- but not under the auspices of the church.

[grammastola]

Philos2006 says, "The fact is. That this council of Nycea was ordered by the civil authority."

The council was convened by civil authority, but the final decision rested on the council itself. Your objection is simply spurious.

BTW, it's the Council of NICEA, not "Nycea."

[Philos2006]

You can turn it any which way you like. The fact is. That this council of Nycea was ordered by the civil authority. Was this emperor inspired by god to do so ?Secondly that a vote took place about the nature of god. Which is in itself a blasphemy.

[Leiflton]

I find it amazing that there are over 24,000 original manuscripts of the New Testament and the clsest any ancient text comes is the Illiad, with less than 700 original manuscripts. If people reject the authenticity of the New Testament, they reject the entire recorded history of man!

[Leiflton]

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." - Matt 13:15

People are willfully ignorant of the Truth, which as you said, is absolute.

[Philos2006]

Are you comfortable with the idea that HUMANS decide the nature of god, like it was a court case.Majority rules!!! What if they had ruled the other way ? Do you deny the fact that all those disagreeing where expelled and excommunicated. Not difficult to obtain consent like that ,is it ? Peace !!

[grammastola]

Philos2006, if humans had taken upon themselves to decide the nature of God, then your objection would be valid. That's a gross caricature of what happened, though.

Rather, the Council of Nicea voted on the proper way to understand the Trinity, based on what the Bible says. This is vastly different from getting together and saying "Hey, let's decide what God is like!"

As for the heretics (Theonas, Secundus), they were expelled AFTER the vote took place. Not before.

[haojiesheng]

I heard this same historical revision recently. There is quite a bit of that in current days. I have published a short apologetic on the divinity of Christ on my myspace page. By the way, you are an impressive logician.

[Psalm130]

Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is the same substance of the Father, as does the whole New Testament.

[formless777]

Your arguments are very Roman Catholic. The reason Rome hated Arianism was because of racial hatred. The Vandals and Goths were christian before the Romans but were Arians. The Romans needed to discredit the Arians and provide propaganda so their disgruntled subjects would fight rather than joining them.

Roman Catholocism is far closer to Sol Invictus worship than anything Jesus ever said.

[grammastola]

formless777, with all due respect, you have a twisted sense of history. Moroever, the arguments that I gave are NOT specifically Roman Catholic in nature. They are supported by historians such as Paul Meier, as well any number of encyclopedias. I myself am not Catholic, so dismissing my claims as "very Roman Catholic" is both ad hominem argumentation and quite false.

[budcarfan]

Thanks alot for taking this time. God bless you my friend you are a vessel.

[sting007]

dude, i appreciate you taking the time to make these videos. god bless.

[Ashwento]

The homoousios(same substance) of Christ i.e. God incarnate, became accepted dogma at Nicea.. yes divinity was taught before Nicea but in a completely different form....

Jhn10:34 "I said, Ye are gods"

Rom 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

The homoousiosians(trinitarians) began with gnostic heresies, based on pagan trinities of old.

[grammastola]

I absolutely disagree, Ashwento. If you take John 10:34 out of context, it would SEEM to imply that the Jews are gods. A more detailed exegesis shows that Jesus was exposing the inconsistency in their willingness to stone him for claiming divinity. Indeed, Jesus was quoting Psalm 82, which itself emphasized that these so-called "gods" were mere mortal men, nothing more!

[grammastola]

Continued...

Rom 8:14 does not use "sons of God" in the same manner applied to Christ. Rather, it refers to those who are ADOPTED into God's family!

Contrary to your claim, the divinity of Christ was accepted dogma long before Nicea; in fact, as I explained in the video, his divinity was not even under dispute. It most certainly did not come from gnosticism, which would be anthithetical to the notion of the incarnation.

[Ashwento]

The divine nature of Christ was because of the Holy Spirit in the same way we are also made partakers of divinity in 2Pe1:4.

So yes his divinity was not under dispute but the FORM of divinity certainly was. It is the FORM of divinity that is at issue.

"Tell my brothers, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God"-- Jesus

[grammastola]

Ashwento said, "So yes his divinity was not under dispute but the FORM of divinity certainly was. It is the FORM of divinity that is at issue."

Ashwento, that SUPPORTS what I said in my video. Jesus' divinity was most certainly NOT decided or voted upon at Nicea. Period.

[Plisko1]

So then where did the gnostic and other apocrypha gospels come from if there were not lots of different ideas and teachings about Jesus? Some of them express Jesus as human. Most of them were written before Nicea.

Why was Nicea called together by a, then, pagan ruler if it was not to help restore order by establishing an agreement about doctrine?

[grammastola]

False teachings can come from a great many sources. The point is that these gnostic teachings did NOT come from within the church. Nobody denies that there were some aberrant teachings floating around, but except for Arianism, they were not endorsed by any of the church leaders.

As for Constantine being pagan, that's irrelevant. Dan Brown may claim that he was a lifelong pagan, but Brown is no historian. Moreover, Constantine did not dictate the results of the Council.

[Plisko1]

Wouldn't it be more proper to say that the divinity of Christ AS DOGMA was decided upon at Nicea? As I understand it there were lots of different forms of Christianity and part of the reason Nicea was called in the first place was that Christian factions were attacking each other over it. The agreemend spelled out Christs divinity officially.

That's probably what that guy was remembering hearing.

[grammastola]

No, that's not accurate either. The divinity of Christ had consistently been taught long before Nicea. It simply was not in dispute. The only reason why the issue was raised at Nicea was because Arius said, "I disagree with this teaching."

An official pronouncement was passed by the Council, but it was dogmatically taught for centuries before then.

[grammastola]

Also, it's untrue that the Council of Nicea was convened because "there were lots of different forms of Christianity" and that these factions were at war. Rather, as I said in the video, they were addressing the teachings of *Arius*, not multiple teachers. Also, only two of the presbyters (out of over 300) sided with Arius -- Theonas and Secundus.

This was not a case of multiple factions fighting it out. Rather, it was just a tiny dissenting group that was causing trouble.

[Akathist]

grammastola, I would agree with you that the Council was convened primarily because of Arius but don't overlook the many other canons in the Council that dealt with other problems (including factionalism).

[grammastola]

I'm not overlooking them at all, Akathist. You're right; they did deal with other issues, such as the date of the Christian passover and a certain schism with the church. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Arius was the only reason behind the Nicean Council.

Either way, of course, the point remains: The council was not convened in order to decide if Jesus was divine or not. Not even Arius denied that, although his concept of divinity was twisted.

[Akathist]

Oh, yeah, definitely, your point still remain. I just felt you might have been singling out Arius as the only chore the Council dealt with.

[littlemas2]

Just getting into your videos. Thanks for the clear reasoning. Unfortunately, many people on youtube do not understand proper logic. As a history major, I cannot believe how much bad history people are willing to believe based upon bad sources. In this case (Nicea) the history is clear for anyone willing to look at the first hand accounts.

[Newton1692]

Yes, thanks for clearing up misconceptions about the council. I wish you would have thrown in Marcion or Castration, but a different video I guess. I didn't the holy spirit was considered to consubstantial with God and Christ at this council.

[annelizaa]

What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29). There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

[grammastola]

I think you're comment is irrelevant. In John 8:58, Jesus did not merely claim to be "one" with God. Rather, he explicitly declared "I AM," which the Jews understood to be a claim of divinity.

[grammastola]

Besides, this is straying from the scope of this video, as I've repeatedly emphasized. Remember, the video is about whether his divinity was introduced/decided at Nicea, which it wasn't.

For this reason, I will not allow any more comments on whether Jesus WAS divine or not. That's a topic that's worthy of discussion, but as I said, it's beyond the scope of this particular video. Sometime later, I hope to produce a video which tackles that specific issue. Feel free to comment then.

[annelizaa]

Grammastola said: "It is untrue that Jesus never claimed to be God. His use of the term "I AM" demonstrates this (John 8:58). In fact, the Jews clearly understood his intent, since they accused him of blasphemy and attempted to stone him. Additionally, other writings within the NT attest to his divinity."

This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune diety. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles:

[grammastola]

I disagree. As I said, the Jews clearly understood that Jesus was making himself out to be God. Since Jesus is distinct from Yahweh (he prayed to Yahweh, for example), this indicates -- at the very least -- a dual God -- not just two who are one in purpose.

Ultimately though, that's beside the point. The point is that Jesus did indeed claim divinity. Moreover, even if he did not, my point remains -- this teaching was NOT introduced at Nicea. Never was.

[adipiscor]

Could you possibly clarify what is meant by the "divinity of Christ" please, Dean? I've been looking around on the net and haven't found a reasonable explanation. Does it mean that a man in the Middle East called Jesus around 2000 years ago was actually some kind of incarnation of a supernatural being that created the universe trillions of years ago? Thanks again- I appreciate your explanations.

[grammastola]

Quite simply, it means that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. It's that simple. One might reject this teaching on philosophical grounds (misguidedly, IMO), but the teaching itself is quite straightforward.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

Jesus himself never, not once, claim to be god or part of a holy trinity. A concept not found anywhere in the bible. The "Holy Spirit" is not shown to be a seperate entity from god. That blindness you refer to works both ways. You have an agenda. How should we interpret that?

[grammastola]

It is untrue that Jesus never claimed to be God. His use of the term "I AM" demonstrates this (John 8:58). In fact, the Jews clearly understood his intent, since they accused him of blasphemy and attempted to stone him. Additionally, other writings within the NT attest to his divinity.

As I said before, I did not purport to defend the Trinity. That would merit another video altogether. Rather, I addressed the specific and false claim that his divinity was decided at Nicea.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

His blasphemy was for his claim to be on the same level as god. John 8:54-55 shows in the bible Jesus making a clear seperation between himself and god. And not proclaiming to be god himself. God told moses his name was 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' not 'I am'. Jesus never said "I am" And if he said ehyeh to refer to god then how is that not using his name in a vain effort? If Arius had sucsessfully defended his interpretation of Jesus thats what you'd be defending now.

[grammastola]

No, his alleged blasphemy was for claiming to BE God -- not simply claiming to be on his level.  This is made clear in John 10:32, where the Jews said, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

And even if you were correct, this still doesn't prove that his divinity was decided at Nicea. It most certainly was not.

[hich101]

what do the se asians know about christianity?it wasnt exposed to them for hundrede or thousands of yrs after jesus,chinos are just following what they received finally in the mail in their land.they are lost-especially the filipinnos!!!bunch of pagans all of dem,4sure they will get hellfire

[grammastola]

So you're saying that because I'm a southeast Asian, I don't know what I'm talking about. I guess in your view, Southeast Asians are incapable of educating themselves on matters like these.

That's a pretty racist thing to say. It's also ad hominem reasoning -- attacking the argument based on the person who espouses it, rather than any alleged logical failings. Don't worry, though; I would disparage your viewpoint based on the angle of your eyes or the color of your skin.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

How long after the death of Jesus was the gospel of John written? Why is it that only through John is the divinity of Jesus so elaborately emphasized? The universal indoctrination of the divinity of Jesus was decided on by the Nicene council and was disputed by arian christians. And rightfully so.

[grammastola]

The Gospel of John was written, at the latest, within a few decades of Christ's death. By the standards of ancient history, that is an extremely small gap indeed. Moreover, while John expounded on Christ's divinity more than any other writers, he was by no means the only one to do so.

A thorough discussion is beyond the scope of this video. Moreover, you are wrong. As I explained, the divinity of Christ was NOT decided at Nicea.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

I didnt say it was decided on I said its universal indoctrination was decided on. There is a difference.You are correct in that John was not alone in the embellishment of Jesus' divinity. Paul, another human who never knew Jesus in life, helps out as well. But everything both of these MEN wrote is defeated by the simple, absolute fact and truth that Jesus never in the bible claimed to be god. Or part of a "holy trinity". These are prime examples of indoctrinated christian mythos. imo

[grammastola]

Perhaps you can elaborate. What do you mean by "universal indoctrination," and how do you support the claim that this was decided at Nicea?

The divinity of Christ was indeed disputed by the followers of Arius (duh!), but that proves nothing.

It's also incorrect that Jesus never claimed to be God, but that's grist for a whole 'nuther video.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

The whole purpose for the Ecumenical council of Nicea was to unify and bind the doctrines of the various christian sects.

Thus the creation of the nicene creed. As a part of my confirmation into the lutheran church we had commit it to memory as well as read the bible from cover to cover which is where my skepticism in the doctrine of the christian faiths first developed.

[grammastola]

Certainly, it was to unify the church on certian doctrines (most notably, the response to Arianism). This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean "universal indoctrination." The use of such loaded language can only obscure the nature of the debate.

One could just as easily declare that Arius attempted to "indoctrinate" everyone into his own teachings. For my part, I choose to reject such loaded language and simply state things plainly.

[TheLoadedQuestion]

How is that language loaded? There is nothing more simple than indoctrination. The use of any other language would just be a latteral movement. What wording would you choose to describe the decision of church leaders to canonize certain manuscripts as the word of god? I refuse to believe that you think christianity isnt taught. So from where does your hostility toward this word stem?

[grammastola]

Your language is loaded because there's a HUGE difference between making a declaration and "indoctrination." Besides, as I've stated elsewhere (repeatedly, BTW), this is straying far from the topic of this video. Even if your claims were true, it STILL would not mean that his divinity was decided at Nicea.

To keep the discussion on track, I will not allow further comments on whether Jesus actually WAS divine. Perhaps we can discuss that in one of the upcoming videos.

[Rockstar97321]

Theonas and Secundus. OK. I will do the research soon. I just got to work this morning; so I can't do it right now. Perhaps meanwhile, you could post a website or two that has the original documentation. Otherwise it's just one author's word against another's. I am the first one to say that I have never seen any original source document. Dan Brown sure hit some nerves, didn't he?

[grammastola]

Okay. So does this mean that you're not holding firmly to the notion that the vote was about evenly split? After all, why should the burden of proof be on one side, but not the other.

Again, I also recommend the minutes of the Nicean Council. They most specifically single out those two dissenters, and nobody else.

[Rockstar97321]

I never said that I knew one way or another. I was simply reiterating what I had heard. I'm just seeking the truth - whichever way it is.

Also, if the vote was nearly unanamous, what are the implications? I wonder if it was very wise to dissent in ancient Rome. In every election in the old Soviet Union, the president was voted in unanamously; but that does not mean that there was no dissent. I can imagine that it might have been the same way in Rome.

[Rockstar97321]

I am the first to admit that I don't know. Perhaps you could supply a web link to the original source documents. That way it would not be hearsay. Also, I find it a source of disillusionment that the so-called "Infallible Words of God" were compiled by the debating and voting of clergy. Can we really trust them to speak for God? I understand some of the books were canonized by slim margins - true?

[grammastola]

I already suggested that you look up the minutes of the council. They are available in the public domain. Moreover, why should I shoulder the entire burden of proof? If you believe that I'm wrong (as you obviously do), then please cite a credible historical source to that effect. For myself, I shall cite the works of world-class historian, Paul Meier. Just check out his works.

[Rockstar97321]

I looked into it like you asked. But after extensive research I found a site that says the minutes are lost. I sent it to you. What I think is so amazing is that people trust the choices of clergy 100s of years ago. Where's the proof?...the gold trim on the pages? The books that were voted out by thin margins...Hmmm...

[grammastola]

Whoever made that cliam is incorrect. The minutes of Nicea are NOT lost. In fact, my pastor has a copy, and I even read them on the 'net. Moreover, you have yet to cite a single source which declares that Christ's divinity was indeed decided by a narrow margin. Followers of Dan Brown (a non-historian) might make that claim, but real historians routinely trash his claims.

[grammastola]

Rockstar, it sounds like you're talking about people who claim that there was no running record of the Nicean discussion -- no 'minutes' in that sense. That's a vast oversimplification. We do have records of the decisions that were arrived at, as well as documents formulated by the council. These are indeed the 'minutes' in any meaningful sense, and they are publicly available.

Now, please substantiate the claim that the divinity of Christ was decided by a narrow margin.

[Rockstar97321]

I cited my sources; but the guy who filters the messages does not want anyone to be confused by the facts. It's called 'blind faith'.

[grammastola]

You did NOT cite any source (apart from Dan Brown) for the assertion that the divinity of Christ was decided by a narrow margin. Nor did you cite any source for your assertion that the Bible was compiled by this council. It seems to me that you're placing (ahem) "blind faith" in the unscholarly words of Dan Brown.

[royharper01]

Please provide proof that the Bible was indeed compiled "by the debating and voting of clergy." Oh, and since you're so quick to demand the ORIGINAL source documents, then I think we should expect nothing less of you. Unless, of course, you hold yourself to a much lower standard.

No historian that I know would claim that the Bible was compiled at Nicea, or by any other "debating and voting of clergy." I mentioned Ehrman; even he says that's nonsense.

[royharper01]

"Dan Brown sure hit some nerves" you say. Dan Brown is NOT an historians. Even atheist Bart Ehrman says that Brown's work is crap.

I challenge you to find even a single history prof who thinks that "The Da Vinci Code" is a scholarly work. For pity's sake, Brown couldn't even get Leonardo's name right! ("Da Vinci" isn't his name.)

[royharper01]

Rockstar97321, you should read "Truth and fiction in The Da Vinci code: a historian reveals what we really know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine."

Oh, and before you respond with a snide remark -- this book was NOT authored by a Christian. He's not even a theist, for pity's sake.

Dan Brown is NOT a reliable source. He doesn't even cite any "original source documents," as you keep demanding.

[Rockstar97321]

Prove it. Where is the original source documentation that you speak of? Convince me that the divinity of Jesus was a landslide vote. I have heard from many sources that the vote was very close. I would like to see your original source documents.

[grammastola]

Look up Theonas and Secundus. They're the only ones who dissented. AS for original source documents, you can look up the minutes of the Council of Nicea, which are in the public domain.

Now, if you can produce "original source documents" which assert that it was indeed a close vote, then I will gladly recant. I submit that you've heard mistruths though, such as those propagated by Dan Brown et al.

[royharper01]

You keep demanding original source documents, yet you place your trust in Dan Brown's word. In case you haven't noticed, Dan Brown isn't even a historian.

Bart D. Ehrman doesn't believe that Jesus is God, yet even he says that Dan Brown's work is overflowing with historical inaccuracies. Brown has no idea what he's saying.

[puritan]

good post

[sounddiv]

it's amazing to me that such basics of ancient history are so hotly contested by people. you can read about this stuff,people!

keep up the good work :)

[Isaac0711]

I like the way you evaluate and interpret the Bible in such a detailed manner...good job! Looking forward to your next videos!

[AziMeX]

Bobeeq, Im afraid thats how people win discussions. Its called censorship. Any group of people who are together who hold the same views will keep reinforcing their views until it becomes blind faith. Hitler did this perfectly.

[grammastola]

Nonsense. Bobeeg's off-topic comments are not allowed, and for good reason. If you're going to respond to this video, please be civil and stick to the subject matter being discussed. It's just that simple.

It's poor form to post off-topic remarks, then whine about "censorship."

[grammastola]

Bobeeg keeps sending off-topic postings, despite my previous warning. As I stated earlier, they will not be allowed.

Bobeeg says that Constantine murdered many non-believers. I don't disagree. That is, however, irrelevant to the topic of this video -- namely, whether Christ's divinity was decided at Nicea or not. It wasn't.

[grammastola]

To further elaborate, I do agree that Constantine was a questionable individual. I do NOT believe he was a genuine Christian. This does nothing to disprove Christ's divinity, though -- especially since this was NEVER under dispute at the Council of Nicea!

[Bobeeg]

I notice that you prevent others from posting if they don't agree with you. How fair is that? No wonder you only have a couple hundred views; compared to 15,000+

views on sites that allow opposing ideas. What are you afraid of? Constantines motives are completely relevant to how and what was decided at Nicea.

[grammastola]

Untrue, Bobeeg. I allowed your previous comments, for example, even though you disagreed. The same is true on my other videos.

I disallowed your most recent comments because THEY WERE OFF-TOPIC. For some strange reason, you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

[royharper01]

Bobeeg, I notice that both you and Arithus posted comments in which you disagreed, and yet those comments were allowed. I've seen that on other videos as well. It's dishonest of you to say that only people who agree are allowed to post.

[Bobeeg]

The Emperor Constantine, who lifted Christianity into power, murdered his wife Fausta, and his eldest son Crispus, the same year that he convened the Council of Nice to decide whether Jesus Christ was a man or the Son of God. The council decided that Christ was consubstantial with the father. This was in the year 325. We are thus indebted to a wife-murderer for settling the vexed question of the divinity of the Savior.

[grammastola]

As I explained in this video, Christ's divinity was NOT under dispute at Nicea. Rather, the issue being discussed was his co-eternality with the Father. Arius did not contest Christ's divinity.

Additionally, only two bishops (Theonas and Secundus) contested his co-eternality. The remaining 300+ affirmed the traditional view.

[Bobeeg]

Theodosius called a council at Constantinople in 381, and this council decided that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father.Theodosius, the younger, assembled another council at Ephesus to ascertain who the Virgin Mary really was, and it was solemnly decided in the year 431 that she was the Mother of God

[grammastola]

That's an overly simplistic description of what the Council of Ephesus declared... but even if it were not, Bobeeg, this has nothing to do with this particular video. Nor does it refute the Trinity in any way.

[grammastola]

BTW, please try to keep to the topic of this video. I hate to put my foot down, but future off-topic postings will not be allowed.

[philos71]

Good reasoning.

[shiguro]

Correct. Emperor Constintine requested the bishops meet in the first ecumenical council to defend the church from the heresay of ayranism. The trinity was taught before that, but was first put into an easily recognizable form in the Nicean Creed.

[Arithus]

Christ is not God.

He was the son, the only explainations that can be given as evidence for "Jesus = God" must be interpreted so.

[grammastola]

"Christ is not God," says Arithus.

First of all, I wasn't trying to defend the divinity of Christ; rather, I was addressing the specific claim that his divinity was invented at Nicea. The subject of his divinity is worth discussing, but that would merit a whole 'nuther video.

Second, your comment amounts to nothing more than an assertion. Nothing more.

BTW, I responded to this comment months ago, but youtube's buggy system must have prevented it from being posted.