Why should we believe in the results of the Council of Nicea?

[servantofiam]

Anyways, I need to run for a bit and shall return. God Bless you both!!

 

[Radagast]

Which is even more proof of tampering since the Didache original word used was in English

No, the Didache was not originally written in English. For one thing, English did not exist when the Didache was written.

And regarding the baptismal formula, it comes from Matthew 28:19-20: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

[servantofiam]

No, the Didache was not originally written in English. For one thing, English did not exist when the Didache was written.

It claims the Didache was originally written in Koine Greek.

So one would think then the Greek word "Eukharista" would be the chosen word for describing the breaking of bread, or the Eucharist. Because the word "Eukharista" means breaking of bread/Eucharist.

Paul also wrote about the communion, or breaking of bread in his letters, which were also in Greek. Just Below is the Greek to English translation of this passage of scripture.


Strong's Greek English Morphology
3588 [e] Τὸ
To The Art-NNS
4221 [e] ποτήριον
potērion cup N-NNS
3588 [e] τῆς
tēs - Art-GFS
2129 [e] εὐλογίας
eulogias of blessing N-GFS
3739 [e] ὃ
ho that RelPro-ANS
2127 [e] εὐλογοῦμεν,
eulogoumen we bless, V-PIA-1P
3780 [e] οὐχὶ
ouchi not IntPrtcl
2842 [e] κοινωνία
koinōnia a participation N-NFS
1510 [e] ἐστὶν
estin is it V-PIA-3S
3588 [e] τοῦ
tou in the Art-GNS
129 [e] αἵματος
haimatos blood N-GNS
3588 [e] τοῦ
tou - Art-GMS
5547 [e] Χριστοῦ;
Christou of Christ? N-GMS
3588 [e] τὸν
ton The Art-AMS
740 [e] ἄρτον
arton bread N-AMS
3739 [e] ὃν
hon that RelPro-AMS
2806 [e] κλῶμεν,
klōmen we break, V-PIA-1P
3780 [e] οὐχὶ
ouchi not IntPrtcl
2842 [e] κοινωνία
koinōnia a participation N-NFS
3588 [e] τοῦ
tou in the Art-GNS
4983 [e] σώματος
sōmatos body N-GNS
3588 [e] τοῦ
tou - Art-GMS
5547 [e] Χριστοῦ
Christou of Christ N-GMS
1510 [e] ἐστιν;
estin is it? V-PIA-3S


As you can plainly see, the Greek word "Eukharista" which the Didache claims the first church used is incorrect. Paul never used that word. And Paul is using the same language which would logically seem he would need to use the same word. But he does not. Paul is the example of the first church. And the Didache is not even close to Paul's supposedly using the identical same language.

Just off all over the place. Makes me not have a good feeling towards the Didache at all

And regarding the baptismal formula, it comes from Matthew 28:19-20: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I am well aware of this particular passage of scripture.

It's why I scratch my head when I read this command, and then I see in the Book of Acts Peter - Phillip - Paul not baptizing by that command, but by the Name of Jesus.

And I scratch my head even harder when I read Jesus making the Disciples (who all were clearly not following the Command of Jesus, but baptizing in His name like Peter - Phillip -Paul) a tribute of gates in precious gems in the description of New Jerusalem.

How does the Disciples baptize differently than commanded and end up with a Tribute by God later on?

This is how I know it's foolish bickering over which Formula is correct. Because in Revelations, God makes it clear He is pleased with His Disciples.

So it leads to another resolution: Maybe the Disciples and Paul did not break the command. Maybe it was ok baptizing like they did. After all, Luke wrote the Book of Acts. And he was learned man (doctor). So he wrote down what they did correctly. And that definitely means God was ok with it. Because when we reach New Jerusalem, we will see the Gates God rewarded His Disciples with!!

 

[Radagast]

Because the word "Eukharista" means breaking of bread/Eucharist.

The word means "thanksgiving." Different words can be used to refer to the same sacrament, like "Eucharist," "Communion," "Lord's Supper," or "Breaking of Bread."

Paul never used that word.

Yes, he does, but he uses it to mean thanksgiving in general.

Maybe the Disciples and Paul did not break the command,

Here's a thought: maybe the Apostles were actually Christians who believed in the deity of Christ, and baptised people according to the formula that Christ gave us.

 

[servantofiam]

The word means "thanksgiving." Different words can be used to refer to the same sacrament, like "Eucharist," "Communion," "Lord's Supper," or "Breaking of Bread."

I know that much, but the word later became communion of the breaking of the bread.

Yes, he does, but he uses it to mean thanksgiving in general.

In the passage of scripture I provided concerning him teaching the communion, he does not use that word at all. That is why I provided that scripture for you to read.

Here's a thought: maybe the Apostles were actually Christians who believed in the deity of Christ, and baptised people according to the formula that Christ gave us.

That is one way of looking at it. But since we know LUKE wrote the Book of Acts, and we look at the Book of Luke also written by LUKE, we see the same scripture found in Matthew 28:19. So clearly, Luke is very familiar with that scripture. Which is why when he now writes they baptized in the Lord's Name, Paul used Jesus Name, he (Luke) obviously knows this is different from his Book of Luke.

But here is the real kicker, NOWHERE after the Gospels, do we see any baptism following Matthew 28:19. And that just seems like a big ole red flag to me. Why do we see another way of being baptized by 2 of the biggest names in the New Testament?

I am not suggesting anything here: Let's get that straight so I do not get into trouble. But, we do know the Book of Isaiah written in 100% Hebrew/Aramaic has a word in it from a language not yet in existence for another 700 years. The word is "Lucifer," and the language is Latin Vulgate. So obviously, we know Isaiah DID NOT add the word "Lucifer." But nonetheless, that Latin Vulgate word is there mixed between all of the Hebrew/Aramaic. Then we ask, what people spoke Latin Vulgate? Romans did. So clearly, a person of Roman heritage must have added Lucifer to the Book of Isaiah.

If this happens to be a fact, what else could also be an add on?

Like I said, I am not suggesting anything here. But for the Disciples and Paul to refuse a direct command from God in the flesh, seems extremely odd to me. I just do not believe Peter, after denying Christ, would disobey a direct commandment. But if we read Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, it appears that Peter did disobey.

And Paul was hand picked by Christ, after ascending, to preach the Gospel to us Gentiles. I cannot see Paul disobeying either.

What if then, Matthew 28:19 was like what we know about the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah...AND I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENED...but for entertaining purposes only since we see Peter and Paul not obeying a direct command from God, what if there was foul play here?

I mean, logically speaking, it would clear a lot of things up especially why Peter and Paul were baptizing in the Name of the Lord/Jesus. This is why I love the Bible, it is a puzzle. And this is one of those places in the puzzle where the pieces don't actually fit.

But, I do not see God rewarding the Disciples with monuments in New Jerusalem for disobeying a direct command and bringing confusion upon the church. God is not the author of confusion, but this piece of the puzzle definitely can be!!

 

[Radagast]

But here is the real kicker, NOWHERE after the Gospels, do we see any baptism following Matthew 28:19.

There's no evidence that the baptisms in Acts didn't follow Christ's command.

But, we do know the Book of Isaiah written in 100% Hebrew/Aramaic has a word in it from a language not yet in existence for another 700 years.

You're making no sense. Nobody has changed the Hebrew in Isaiah. If you don't like the Latin Vulgate translation, don't use it. Here are some good English translations from the original OT Hebrew:

CSB: Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground.

ESV: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

NASB: How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

And how is it surprising that a Latin speaker was the one who made a Latin translation? You're making no sense. You don't need to use the Vulgate (or the KJV, which is influenced by it).

What if then, Matthew 28:19 was like what we know about the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah...AND I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENED

Yes, you are. You're attacking the Bible because you are not a Trinitarian Christian (as shown by your now-deleted posts).

And I say again, we have good English translations from the original NT Greek. You should read them.

 

[servantofiam]

I need to go to bed...

But I want to leave you with this last thought.

God forbid, but even if there was foul play, that does not take away from the fact that God is definitely TRIUNE!!

And being baptized like we read in the Book of Acts also does not take away from the fact that God is TRIUNE!!

It's just a Baptismal Formula, it does not remove from the fact that our God is 100% absolutely TRIUNE in His nature!!

 

[servantofiam]

There's no evidence that the baptisms in Acts didn't follow Christ's command.

We have specific examples of Peter and Paul baptizing and not once do we read Father-
Son-Holy Spirit, we read like Acts 2:38.

You're making no sense. Nobody has changed the Hebrew in Isaiah. If you don't like the Latin Vulgate translation, don't use it. Here are some good English translations from the original OT Hebrew:

CSB: Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground.

ESV: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

NASB: How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

And how is it surprising that a Latin speaker was the one who made a Latin translation? You're making no sense. You don't need to use the Vulgate (or the KJV, which is influenced by it).

Yes, that is the beauty of today with many translations. But when all we had was the KJV, it did seem rather odd.

Yes, you are. You're attacking the Bible because you are not a Trinitarian Christian (as shown by your now-deleted posts).

And I say again, we have good English translations from the original NT Greek. You should read them.

I have the CLV, CJB, and for the Old Testament the Torah. The Torah is what Christ read Isaiah from when He said, no prophet have honor in his own country. And if the Torah was good enough for Christ, it is definitely good enough for me.

And asking questions when you see Matthew 28:19 vs Acts 2:38 is not attacking the Bible, it's how a good student of the WORD grows in knowledge. By looking at every angle, even the angle we pray does not exist!!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Early Trinitarian Quotes | CARM.org

Sabellius dates to around 220 AD about 200 years after Jesus.
Sabellianism | Catholic Answers

Arius denied the deity of Jesus around 313
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arius

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The above post is informational. The Council being discussed here was to deal with Arianism. As you can see from the handful of quotes the early church believed in the Trinity. You do not find Modalism or Sabellianism before Sabelius came upon the scene., Those at the Council were tortured for their faith. They were well educated in the Scriptures in the original languages, they knew what the early church had taught. They have a direct line to the Apostles' Teachings. Acts 2:38 deals with the authority to baptize.

The Didache dates to 110 AD.

"
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

"This Jesus, he said, has God raised up, of which we all are witnesses: who, being exalted by the right hand of God, receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, has shed forth this gift which you now see and hear. For David has not ascended into the heavens; but he says himself, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:30-37 And when the multitudes exclaimed, What shall we do then? Peter says to them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:37-38 Thus the apostles did not preach another God, or another Fulness; nor, that the Christ who suffered and rose again was one, while he who flew off on high was another, and remained impassible; but that there was one and the same God the Father, and Christ Jesus who rose from the dead; and they preached faith in Him, to those who did not believe in the Son of God, and exhorted them out of the prophets, that the Christ whom God promised to send, He sent in Jesus, whom they crucified and God raised up."Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book III, Chapter 12 part 3

"
17. For whereas in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the apostles, the name of Christ is alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in such a way as that the Son alone, without the Father, or against the Father, can be of advantage to anybody; but that it might be shown to the Jews, who boasted as to their having the Father, that the Father would profit them nothing, unless they believed on the Son whom He had sent. For they who know God the Father the Creator, ought also to know Christ the Son, lest they should flatter and applaud themselves about the Father alone, without the acknowledgment of His Son, who also said, No man comes to the Father but by me. John 14:6 But He, the same, sets forth, that it is the knowledge of the two which saves, when He says, And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3 Since, therefore, from the preaching and testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be first known, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together; how, when God the Father is not known, nay, is even blasphemed, can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins? For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The former, because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptizedalso in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:38-39 Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father.

18. Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity? Unless while one who denies Christ is denied by Christ, he who denies His Father whom Christ Himself confessed is not denied; and he who blasphemes against Him whom Christ called His Lord and His God, is rewarded by Christ, and obtains remission of sins, and the sanctification of baptism! But by what power can he who denies God the Creator, the Father of Christ, obtain, in baptism, the remission of sins, since Christ received that very power by which we are baptizedand sanctified, from the same Father, whom He called greater than Himself, by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even unto the obedience of drinking the cup, and of undergoing death? What else is it then, than to become a partaker with blaspheming heretics, to wish to maintain and assert, that one who blasphemes and gravely sins against the Father and the Lord and God of Christ, can receive remission of sins in the name of Christ? What, moreover, is that, and of what kind is it, that he who denies the Son of Godhas not the Father, and he who denies the Father should be thought to have the Son, although the Son Himself testifies, and says, No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father? John 6:65 So that it is evident, that no remission of sins can be received in baptism from the Son, which it is not plain that the Father has granted. Especially, since He further repeats, and says, Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up. Matthew 15:13

19. But if Christ's disciples are unwilling to learn from Christ what veneration and honour is due to the name of ..." Epistles (Cyprian of Carthage) > Epistle 72 CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle 72 (Cyprian of Carthage)

Note: "all nations" In Matthew 28 is Jesus final command related to baptism of Gentiles. In Acts 2 the context is strictly Jewish People religion wise.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Daniel Marsh]

smile

 

[Prepper Pete]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to? Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did, or was it just a bunch of scholars and theologians who came together to discuss trying to pinpoint who Jesus was? (I really dont know some of these answers so I come here looking for a history lesson and an answer to this question).

The first council was written about in the Book of Acts (The Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15), and it lays out the framework for why there would be a council... to resolve disputes that weren't so easily resolved, or when it seemed that the Apostles were not in agreement. No need to go into the details of the Jerusalem Council, but we should take note the issue of how to deal with gentile converts was uncharted territory. To me, councils should not stray too far from that type of mandate. We should already agree on the things that have been settled without too much controversy, but when it is necessary to answer questions that haven't been asked or settled prior.

The other component is that it was the church fathers who convened and settled the matter. It isn't a public debate where all of our opinions are taken in and voted on. It was a special council reserved to those in direct succession to the Apostles, or in the case of the Jerusalem Council, the Apostles themselves.