The ultimate question regarding the validity of Christianity and religion.

[King Shizzo]

How do you explain the council of Nicaea? A group of important people got together on Christianity, and decided on what made the most sense. How does this not raise red flags? How do we know what is doctored? The facts are as they have always been. We do not know shit, and the faithful must have faith. It is all they have.


The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus resolving an early church crisis.

The controversy began when Arius, an Alexandrian priest, questioned the full divinity of Christ because, unlike God, Christ was born and had a beginning. What began as an academic theological debate spread to Christian congregations throughout the empire, threatening a schism in the early Christian church. Roman Emperor Constantine I, who converted to Christianity in 312, called bishops from all over his empire to resolve the crisis and urged the adoption of a new creed that would resolve the ambiguities between Christ and God.

Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy. The Emperor Constantine presided over the opening of the council and contributed to the discussion.

[King Shizzo]

Looks like I solved the ancient mystery of life.

[Man of Steel]

It'a actually a common misconception that the council of Nicea developed or established the concept or theology of the Trinity on July 19, 325 AD.  The focus of the council of bishops was the discussion on the cult theology of Arianism as proposed by the silver-tongued presbyter Arius.  Given the previous centuries of Christian persecution prior to this brief era of peace Constantine convened the bishops to discuss this uprising lead by Arius in order to prevent further strife and dissension within the church and preserve the era of peace.  

Arius believed that Christ was not the eternal Son of God, but was actually created by God the Father.  Arius pushed for others to accept this theology.  The concept of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was not developed or established at this point, it was defended as it was already fully represented in scripture and demonstrated during Christ's ministry.  

During Jesus' ministry the jewish Sanhedrin approached the Roman government for assistance in capturing, punishing and killing Jesus Christ because of his "blasephemous claims of divinity"...that Christ claimed that he was in fact the Son of God and fulfillment of prophetic scripture from centuries past.  The quality of Christ's divinity was called into question by Arius, but the council rejected the cult of Arianism and thereby publically came together and unified the theology they had taught for centures (and was passed to them from Christ and his apostles) via the Nicene Creed.  The only thing they may have developed (or coined) was the term "Trinity".

[Gonuclear]

It'a actually a common misconception that the council of Nicea developed or established the concept or theology of the Trinity on July 19, 325 AD.  The focus of the council of bishops was the discussion on the cult theology of Arianism as proposed by the silver-tongued presbyter Arius.  Given the previous centuries of Christian persecution prior to this brief era of peace Constantine convened the bishops to discuss this uprising lead by Arius in order to prevent further strife and dissension within the church and preserve the era of peace.  

Arius believed that Christ was not the eternal Son of God, but was actually created by God the Father.  Arius pushed for others to accept this theology.  The concept of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was not developed or established at this point, it was defended as it was already fully represented in scripture and demonstrated during Christ's ministry.  

During Jesus' ministry the jewish Sanhedrin approached the Roman government for assistance in capturing, punishing and killing Jesus Christ because of his "blasephemous claims of divinity"...that Christ claimed that he was in fact the Son of God and fulfillment of prophetic scripture from centuries past.  The quality of Christ's divinity was called into question by Arius, but the council rejected the cult of Arianism and thereby publically came together and unified the theology they had taught for centures (and was passed to them from Christ and his apostles) via the Nicene Creed.  The only thing they may have developed (or coined) was the term "Trinity".

There is an alternative version of the story of Christ's death.

The Sanhedrin did not ask the Romans to kill Jesus.   The Jews had a long history of rebellion against Rome, and Christ was being called The King of the Jews because so many people believed Him to be the Messiah. 

Hearing this, the Romans (specifically, Pontius Pilate, the Procurator of the region) arrested Jesus.  He was ordered executed by the Romans when He refused to acknowledge the Emperor as the ultimate authority over the Jewish people. It is true that the Jewish authorities were hostile toward Him, but the Jews hated the Romans and did not ask them to kill anyone.

Many people believe Christ never claimed divinity in His lifetime.   

[King Shizzo]

I just never trusted the ideas that the early church could, essentially, mold the teachings however they saw fit. We know they omitted texts. What would stop the from re-wording and adding texts as well?

How can people trust the info in the bible is really 2000+ years old? Some of it could easily be from around the time of the Council of Nicaea, and maybe as late as the middle ages.

[Man of Steel]

There is an alternative version of the story of Christ's death.

The Sanhedrin did not ask the Romans to kill Jesus.   The Jews had a long history of rebellion against Rome, and Christ was being called The King of the Jews because so many people believed Him to be the Messiah.  

Hearing this, the Romans (specifically, Pontius Pilate, the Procurator of the region) arrested Jesus.  He was ordered executed by the Romans when He refused to acknowledge the Emperor as the ultimate authority over the Jewish people. It is true that the Jewish authorities were hostile toward Him, but the Jews hated the Romans and did not ask them to kill anyone.

Many people believe Christ never claimed divinity in His lifetime.  

Yep, there is always an alternate version and this is definitely an alternate version of the story of Christ's death.

I also fully agree that many people deny the divinity of Christ.

[Man of Steel]

I just never trusted the ideas that the early church could, essentially, mold the teachings however they saw fit. We know they omitted texts. What would stop the from re-wording and adding texts as well?

How can people trust the info in the bible is really 2000+ years old? Some of it could easily be from around the time of the Council of Nicaea, and maybe as late as the middle ages.

A great way to trust the age and accuracy of the biblical scriptures lies in the volume and age of the NT manuscripts that predate the council of Nicea by centuries and that all align with one another.  These same manuscripts are the sources of the biblical translations that we know today and have been carbon dated and fully vetted and validated....the field of textual criticism specializes in this exact process.  Textual critics specializing in ancient documents (including NT manuscripts) estimate the accuracy of biblical translations of today to be 99.6% accurate and tied to the source manuscripts just mentioned.  

The early church actually omitted those texts that did not align with Christ and his apostles and that re-worded and added theology not present in the teachings of Christ and his apostles.  The primary elimination were those texts aligned with the concepts of the gnostic cult.  For example, the now infamous Gospel of Thomas is a heretical text from the 2nd century that aligns with gnosticism, but made famous in the modern world by those seeking to discredit Christianity and Jesus Christ. It's a prime example of a young audience of critics diving into an old (debunked) bag of tricks in an attempt to bring a "fresh, new perspective" to a young, naive audience using an ancient ploy long.....LONG....since rejected.

This is by no means an exhaustive reply on this subject, merely a high level overview.