Talk:First Council of Nicaea/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Meletian Schism

Could we have at least a few words to explain just what this is? Lots about the actions taken toward it, but no actual explanation. The Arian controversy is nicely summarized in that section, but this is left undefined. T-bonham (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) =============================================***********

The Arian controversy was approximately; There is one God, no one and nothing else can be similar to Him because if He was a being n if He created everything from nothing whenever He wants n whichever way or whichever form He wants, Nothing can be similar to Him... Because opposite of 'Being' is 'Non-being'... but this idea refused for security of empire n empirical reasons(!)... **************; 'Zeitgeist' documentary on youtube can give some ideas for curious ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.32.108 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Council of Nicaea & Reincarnation

I have heard that the council of Nicaea removed references to a christian form of reincarnation reconised by some early forms of the church. References such as this from a quick google of "Nicaea & Reincarnation".

"Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the concepts of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with God in Christian doctrine" [1]

I am far from being an expert on early Christianity. Can someone provide further guidance as to how reincarnation featured in any of the dicussions of the Council of Nicaea.

Please also note I am not espousing a modern Christian position for or against the issue, just looking at how Nicaea was possibly relevant to the question. A discussion of a christian position is discussed on Reincarnation#Christianity, but makes no reference to Nicaea.

--61.68.239.189 (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what do we have from the First Council of Nicaea (directly - not counting later writings by the participants). Not much: a creed, some canons, a letter to Egyptians... So, it's relatively easy to read all of them and check if any of them reference reincarnation (they don't). The beliefs of the orthodox bishops obviously did not include reincarnation. The condemned beliefs of the Arians also did not include it. Thus it seems obvious that there was little reason to discuss reincarnation in this Council. Actually, the current version of the article ([2]) includes an external link http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html (under the name "The Council of Nicaea and the Bible") that discusses this claim (actually, many claims of the type "The early church believed X, but the First Council of Nicaea suppressed it.") in more detail. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I Just read your source and it is anything but valid. The website it comes from is there just to sell books made up by the site itself. It is as if I wrote a book proving that 3 toed frogs flew over Jesus' head and then made up a website and asked "Did the First Council of Nicaea suppress all of the verses in the Bible that spoke of these 3 toed angelic frogs"? now buy my book. No the early church never believed in reincarnation The Writer of Hebrews (had to be written before 97 AD because Clement of Rome quotes from it - more likely 50-69 AD)wrote in Hebrews 9:27 "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" So 300 years before First Council of Nicaea the church as well as the Jews the preceded them never believed in reincarnation.--69.14.96.9 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

exact count

you guys dont have exact number of participants. and that was not even 1000 years ago. its pity :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: They were 161 for, 157 against! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.16.77 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't called by the "catholic church" but by Constantine to create a single imperial religion that would unite all the disparate religious groups that existed within the Roman Empire. What the world ended up with was a catholic church that was an amalgam of Sol Invictus (Roman) Mithras (Persian) Judaism (Palestine) with Greek and Northern European belief thrown in to make up something that would be acceptable to everyone throughout the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.0.237 (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the conspiracy theories. Which is more probable? 1) 200+ people meet somewhere, they debate and argue and yet reach some sort of consensus about what they actually believe and call it a day or 2) that Emperor Constantine bullies/bribes/forces the same 200+ people to shut up while transforming their entire religion beyond recognition, doing this using these 200+ people as a fig leaf and somehow managing to achieve that the same 200+ people and their congregations (many thousands of people) somehow all choose to remain completely silent after returning home from Nicaea? Occam's razor applies. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BUT BUT I READ DA VINCI CODE AND I HATE CHRISTIANITY WAHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.59.92 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats more probable? A Roman Emperor decides to call a meeting, bringing in bishops from all over and attend it, when they all agree anyway that it is an oddball heresy, but, hey, it's fun and the 'right thing to do', or he went to the considerable expense and effort to convene it for a practical (real and tangible) purpose? My money would be on the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Passover section

I've let stand User:Carlaude's revert back to the last anon IP edit, but have removed an inappropriate statement. The relevant diffs are here, here and here. There are, of course, many different ways of summarizing the verifiable facts for readers. But WP isn't in the "business" of providing disclaimers of the kind submitted by the anon IP and reinstated by Carlaude. The sentence I most objected to, and which I removed again, read: "However, Constantine's personal motives and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Council fathers. " ... Kenosis (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation added to addendum at bottom of Passover section. 09/12/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasvinaramin (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that these edits - [3], [4] - are referenced here. However, Wikipedia's articles (like "Great Persecution" that was used in this case) are not considered to be reliable sources and cannot be used to reference anything in other articles. Even more, the said article does not seem to support the relevant paragraph or sentence ("This was already a pattern before the council put into effect the banishment of the old-testament feasts (Jewish holidays).") in any way - it simply explains how the Christians have been persecuted by pagan Romans before Constantine, Edict of Milan (that ended this persecution) or the First Council of Nicaea. It doesn't look like any "old-testament feasts" are even mentioned in that article. Because of that, I am considering the removal of the said paragraph (added with edit [5]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of those references are directly related to this article. The enforcement of policy to destroy the Jewish traditions also affected early Christians as they kept the feasts described in the bible at the same appointed times as the Jews. If you'd like, I can go into further detail regarding this or I can remove the questionable material as per your request. To further explain this reasoning... Rome only cared about their version of Christianity, which was then enforced (as described in detail where the notations I had made are located). If you didn't keep Sunday and decided to keep Saturday worship, you were put to death because that was the Jewish Sabbath, as an example. Anything related to Judaism was treated as an affront and dealt with the Roman way.

The other thing I'm confused about is... I can't cite a source on the same website that houses information regarding a specific subject? In other words, despite the balance and check system in place to verify information, I can not cite sources that speak about the same topic as the one I'm posting on? Ultimately, this seems like a contradiction; "wiki cannot be used to reference anything in other articles" meaning I have to cite outside sources only despite the fact that the information originally came from outside sources to begin with and have already passed the balance and check system? I actually see other citations all over wiki that direct to other wiki information all the time...

Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "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. ... avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... 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. ... 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."

The original point of the cited information was to bring to light that the teaching from the bible (that early Christians kept) was adverse to Constantine's stance on early Christianity since it resembled Judaism. As an example, Seventh day adventists and other churches (nowadays and back in the time of Constantine) celebrate(d) the Sabbath on Saturday despite the teaching otherwise. Some bishops from the Catholic faith have also written books that make mention of this (and I can cite those sources if you like).

I'm not wanting to pick a fight, but I am fairly new at editing in wiki. If you can help me contribute, I'd greatly appreciate it since I'd much like to convey this information correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasvinaramin (talk • contribs)

Yes, sometimes Wikipedia's policies can seem to be confusing. But look at it this way: Wikipedia's articles can change at any time - someone can vandalise them, someone can add a fact or two, someone can make a mistake, someone can decide to rewrite the whole article... Sometimes these changes are seen and reverted, sometimes they are seen and are supported by consensus, but sometimes they stay without being noticed. And even when they are noticed, calling the procedure (simple discussion between users who noticed and cared about the matter) "the balance and check system in place to verify information" might be an overstatement... Because of that it is prefered not to cite Wikipedia's articles to avoid proliferation of mistakes made in one article to the other articles.

Now - about the text. You wrote: "Although it is called the "Christian celebration of Easter" the bible never specified that the date of the Passover should be changed or abolished; in fact even Christ kept the feast of Unleavened Bread which began with the day of Passover (Matthew 26:17,Luke 22:7)." ([6]). Now, Easter is meant to commemorate Christ's resurrection and both verses reference the events before the resurrection, so they seem to be mostly irrelevant for the matter at hand. I doubt if I really understand what was meant by the next two sentences ("Easter, as a note, should be regarded as a separate teaching from that of the bible. This note made only for clarity of ideas and understanding.), thus I am going to skip them for now. Then you write "The reason early Christians had become martyrs is due to the fact that this law was put into effect in 325AD by the Council of Nicaea and implemented by Roman Emperor Constantine the First and that those found keeping the early Christian feasts were exiled and/or put to death.". Normally I would expect that "early Christians" would include the martyrs to the first three centuries before the First Council of Nicaea, but they simply could not have been martyred according to the law that had yet to be written. Thus the last sentence of the paragraph probably means something else... Did you mean something like "The Roman state took measures against the ones who disagreed with decrees of the First Concil of Nicaea."?

So, it might be a good idea to rewrite this paragraph using the sources you have available, as in its current condition it would probably have to be removed... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jndkocha (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I would like to point out your article quotes Eusebbius as stating that placing the Passover before the spring equinox is a mistake. You also cite Peter, Bishop of Alexandria as saying "the ancients observed the first month after the equinox." Have you considered that these writings may inaccurately represent the pracitce of the Jews? I would find more compelling to see a quote from a Jewish Historian stating that the "ancients celebrated it after the equinox" or stating that what these Church Historians have said. Afterall, there are numerous records that the Roman Church wanted a complete separation from Judaism, יהוה(The LORDs) Feasts etc.

Canon?

Jerome says the Council adopted a canon of scripture that included Judith (in his prologue to his translation of that book). Have any scholarly sources said anything about this? Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. In his prologue to the Book of Judith found in the Vulgate, in an offhand comment, he says, "But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures...". (Sed quia hunc librum sinodus nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur conputasse...). There is no mention here of the magic word "canon", although the scriptures are mentioned. In another of his Vulgate prologues, the Prologus Galeatus, he says in another off-hand comment, "Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon." Apparently, a book can be in the Bible without being in the canon. Or there are different canons. Or something else. It's hard to tell because we don't really know what Jerome meant by "canon". Rwflammang (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an excellent secondary source that discusses the whole Nicean-Biblical-canon mythology in some detail, and provides hyperlinks to many primary sources. It mentions Jerome's contribution. Very neat. Rwflammang (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible to be produced in 331 (Athanasius' Apologia Ad Constantium chapter 4 at CCEL). It would seem that such a production would also require a determination of what books to include, but there is no record of that occuring. Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus are widely guessed to be examples of these Bibles, but their content varies, i.e. does not appear to have been standardized yet at that date. If you want a secondary reference, see "The Canon Debate", McDonald and Sanders, pages 318, 399-400. 75.15.207.160 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sons of God

whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of God" in the Bible.

Who are the other "sons of God?" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The statement sounds fishy. I doubt that the Arians really believed that Christ was one of many. They seemed to believe that God became a Trinity at some point in time, but that that he was not always a Trinity. It was their opponents who said that they were thereby making Christ a "created being", and not really God. Of course, it's hard to tell what exactly Arians really believed; it was so very long ago, and their language and that of their opponents was often slippery and difficult to pin down. Rwflammang (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic is discussed at Sons of God and Son of God. 75.15.207.160 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar

Many centuries later, retrospectively, the year of this council became part of the basis for our entire Gregorian calendar, as the calendar is designed to fix the spring equinox to the same date as it fell in 325AD - is it worth making a mention of this somewhere? Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... The relationship does seem rather distant... I doubt that there will be many sources noting such a connection, and we should not note it without them (even if there would be a source or two, WP:UNDUE is likely to limit their use). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well documented, but also not necessary in this article. It should be included in the article on the Gregorian Calendar. Nicea was much more important to the Gregorian Calendar than the Gregorian Calendar was to Nicea. Rwflammang (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I am no expert, but I was under the impression that it is theorised that the council decided which of the conflicting gospels would be accepted and actively destroyed all non-canon ones by means of heresy to unify the faith. I read this article just out of interest but was not impressed as I found it biased, other articles such as gospel are more unbiased... so might need a tag --Squidonius (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where you got that from but it's nonsense. The Council of Nicea didn't determine the canon, nor choose the gospels. Carlo (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I know where he got it from. It's been all the buzz for the past few years. I didn't hear it beforehand. And it really added up when the other day I heard someone claim that the trend came from Dan Brown saying this in his book The Da Vinci Code. So the idea that the First Council of Nicaea dealt with biblical canon is essentially a fiction of Dan Brown that the ignorant masses have eaten up, completely in spite of historical reality. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Squidonius, this topic was discussed above under "Canon". - Rwflammang (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You actually have a major problem here. The article states that "The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is indeed the one true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited." And then states "The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east." You then link to the article on the Arius, which states "In about the year 318, he was involved in a dispute with his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, maintaining against him that Jesus, "the Son of God," was not consubstantial or coeternal with God the Father, but that there was once a time, before he was begotten, that he (Jesus) did not exist." You're essentially telling people that the Coucil of Nicea did not decide the divinity of Christ, but instead convened for the purpose of debating the issue of "the Arian controversy" and then explaining that the Arian controversy had to do with the divinity of Christ. In essence, as a reader, this makes me feel like someone is peeing on my head and telling me it's raining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.33.85 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So? The doctrine definitely existed before the council in some way. In case there are any doubts about that - why would the controversy itself arise if the new opinions did not contradict the old ones in any way? Thus the council could not "invent" this doctrine (if the participants already believed that before the council, they could not "invent" the doctrine during the council), it just "defined" it - agreed on the exact words that tell us what the doctrine is. "Invent" and "define" are not synonymous. Thus the article does not contradict itself. Of course, it doesn't mean that it cannot be improved, but it can be worse - for example edits like [7] or [8] definitely didn't improve the things (at the very least the text was coherent before them). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was NEVER a debate in the Church about the Deity of Jesus except by a handful of misguided cultists. The first verse in John's Gospel answers any question of the so-called debate. IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS GOD. Even a rock can understand that John is saying the LOGOS (the Word) WAS GOD. Who is the LOGOS - JESUS THE LOGOS BECOME FLESH. If that isn't enough then just look at Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he (God) says, Your throne O GOD In other words God himself calls the Son, Jesus GOD. Case Closed End of Debate. Now for the 4 Gospels. There were always 4 and only 4 Gospels. Matthew (Lion), Mark (Lamb), Luke (Man) & John (Eagle) based on the four faces of the Cherubim before God (Ezek 1:4-14). So simple yet so hard when some chose to read Dan Brown & History Chanel fiction as if it were fact.--69.14.96.9 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Some ascribe..."

"Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority." Consubstantial is a translation of homoousios, discussed in this article and also in the article on the Homoousians. Homoousios appeared well prior to the council, so its genesis as a word could not have been with the emperor. If the writer here means perhaps that "some" believe Constantine was responsible for its inclusion in the creed, that should be clarified, along with the "some" to whom he refers. Basil Fritts (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The notion that it was Constantine himself who pressed the homoousion on the council fathers arises from Eusebius of Caesarea's letter to his church (in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History I.8), where he justifies his own reluctant acceptance of the term to Constantine's recommending of it. However, the most probable interpretation of Eusebius' statement is that, after a creed had been composed that included this term, and accepted by most of the bishops, Constantine used his authority (with a high degree of success) to get the critics of the term to accept it. 11.2.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Sentences in the overview state that "The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ" and "Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited." These sentences only represent one perspective; there is in fact evidence to the contrary, and both views should be equally represented. Obviously The Da Vinci Code cannot be considered a legitimate source, so I would recommend citing evidence from the works of historical/biblical scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman or Robert Eisenman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 (talk) 7:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I have already commented on the first point in another section ([9]). Would you consider describing the view that you consider to be unrepresented in the article? More exact citations would help too, for now the two articles you have linked do not even seem to mention the word "council"... Oh, and it is not exactly correct that "both views should be equally represented" unless we add some conditions - the policy Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View also includes the part about "Undue weight" (shortcut WP:UNDUE). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these points, I should have explained myself a little better. I am not an expert on early Christianity by any means, so I don't know of any sources in particular that could be cited. I just mentioned Bart Ehrman and Robert Eisenman because they hold the view that the doctrine of the holy trinity WAS created at the time of the Council of Nicaea, and the books that would be included in the biblical canon were also voted for and agreed upon. (Now that I think of it, it could have been during the second Council of Nicaea that these agreements were made; if somebody could clear this up it would be greatly appreciated!) So far as I know this is the view that most scholars hold. I believe Ehrman explains this point of view in at least one or two of his books (perhaps in Misquoting Jesus or Jesus, Interrupted) but because I don't own any books on the subject I can't provide a complete citation with a page number and everything.--69.14.96.9 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right about undue weight; what I meant by "equally represented" was that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," as it says in the NPOV policy. The article currently does not meet these requirements, that is why there is a neutrality dispute. Both viewpoints should be explained with citations to reliable sources in order to resolve this dispute.

I question whether these sources truly did claim that the 325 council addressed the biblical canon. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I must correct myself on one point. The canon was apparently not discussed at the 325 council; however, it was addressed and voted upon in several other councils (see Development of the New Testament canon and Development of the Old Testament canon). So no, I don't believe Ehrman would have claimed that the 325 council addressed the canon.

So then there is really nothing wrong with "Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited." as an NPOV statement.

As to the latter claim, you are really speaking of two different realities without realizing it. First the claim "The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ" is made, but then you later you bring up two authors who supposedly claim that the 325 council invented the doctrine of the Trinity. However, as evidenced by Oneness Pentecostalism, Sabellianism, and Binitarianism, these two issues are entirely distinct. There are plenty of non-Trinitarians who believe in the divinity of Jesus. So you really need to clarify whether you are regarding these two sources as positing the divinity of Jesus as having been an invention of 325 or the Trinity.

Finally, if their opinion actually is that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by the 325 council, this view has to be scrutinized in a similar fashion as the claim that it dealt with the biblical canon. We must ask if the doctrine of the Trinity was even taught by the 325 council. My answer would be that it was not, at least not explicitly. To show this, let us look to the traditional Greek formula used to express the Trinity: "three hypostases of one ousia". Is this formula to be found in the 325 council? No, it is not. Is the divinity of the Holy Spirit explicitly taught in the 325 council? No, it is not. Is the creed expressed at the 325 even linguistically compatible with that of the later 381 council of constantinople? Again, no it's not even that. For the creed of the 325 council says "But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another hypostasis' or 'ousia,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church." The 325 anathematized those who say that the Son is of a different hypostasis from the Father, but the later council of 381 said "three hypostases of one ousia". This is because between the two councils, the main proponent of the 325 council, Athanasius, worked with the Cappadocians Fathers to change the meaning of hypostasis so that it could be orthodox to propose there being three in the Godhead. So as it was, the 325 council did not offer any level or class under which the Godhead was three, and thus the Trinity could not possibly have been a doctrine explicitly taught by it. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some additional research and now realize my misunderstanding. I was unaware that the Nicene Creed was completed at the 381 Council of Constantinople; for some reason I thought it was completed at the 325 council, hence I wrongly stated that most scholars believe the trinity was invented at the 325 council. Apparently it was in the revisions of the 381 council that the idea of a triune God was expounded on, and even further so in the Athanasian Creed. Although the 325 council briefly mentions Jesus' divinity, the idea of the trinity was not fully defined until several decades later. There appears to be no evidence that suggests the trinity was discussed at the 325 council; thank you for clearing this up. Am I correct about this now?

I would like to confirm that the two sentences I quoted above actually appear to be correct and should not be changed. (I apologize, it seems rather pointless that I even bothered to bring up this point in the first place!) However we now have an issue with THIS sentence: "Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is indeed the one true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit." Doesn't this contradict the fact that the trinity was not even discussed at the council? It seems like it would be more relevant in the article on the Nicene Creed of 381 or the Council of Constantinople, since the trinity was actually defined at that time.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. As I said before I'm dealing with a subject that I know very little about, so naturally I'll have a tendency to make mistakes. If there is anything else that needs to be cleared up please let me know.

You've definitely got a good understanding down now. Yes, there is no real evidence of discussion of the Trinitarian doctrine as we now understand it. The focus of the council primarily was to establish the Logos as homoousios/consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father. The council did not even establish the manner in which the Father and the Son were distinct, so it could not have even been considered solidly Binitarian. As a matter of fact, one of the most ardent adherents of the 325 council was accused of being a Sabellian. For the purpose of clarity, the creed as formulated at the 381 council is commonly called the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" to distinguish it from the original Nicene Creed.

You make a good point about that phrase. It is seemingly reading too much into the 325 council. I could see the phrases "and Trinity" and "and the Holy Spirit" being removed, such that it read "that Christ is indeed the one true God in Deity with the Father". I think that would be more accurate to what the council actually is seen to have explicitly established. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making the same mistake that many make stop and think a bit. The Church councils were not about making up anything. what happened was that the church always believed the Bible and never questioned it. When some misguided fool would start to preach a false doctrine that went against the Bible then the church simply said hay look the Bible says this and if you reject what the Bible says then you cannot be a Christian. There were no conspiracies or dark room meeting. Why didn't the church have a set Cannon until about the 320 ADs - because there were no fake writings until the Gnostic gospels were written and some were fooled by them so the church was forced to make a list of the real Bible verse the Gnostic ones. Why did the Church have to speak about the deity of Jesus - because the gnostic Cults began to make up false writings and so the church simple said - JOHN SAID JESUS WAS GOD BELIEVE IT OR GET OUT. The same thing is happening today. Why is there so much talk about Homosexuality in the church today - Simple, there was no need to speak of it until the Homosexual community started to twist the Bible and now the church is forced to say HAY THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. It happened in the 1860 regarding Slavery and I'm sure it will happen in the furture when some other group comes along and tries to add to the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.96.9 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that before anyone makes assertions about what did and didn't happen at Nicaea, they check out the primary sources. There aren't very many, they don't take long to read, and it's real history rather than Dan Brown/Holy Blood Holy Grail style fantasies. There is a list of all the primary sources about Nicaea and the canon that have been translated into English here.2.26.241.32 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

link

This http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2005/001/7.18.html link do not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.205.192 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ecclesiastical Mafia"

About this statement, "St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, from whom the term Ecclesiastical Mafia comes..." Where does that come from, what does it mean? I question the syntax, too- it sounds like it is saying that one of those men coined the term. I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, but that seems like a spurious addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yycubed (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Moved from User talk:Diannaa

hello, I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding, but I'm not sure exactly why you removed the discussion, and put it as "nasty remarks".   If I came across that way a little bit, my apologies.   NOT my intention.   But what was it really?   I was simply explaining why the prior reading was really POV and is disputed and really a matter of opinion.   I explained it fairly well and fairly clearly.   Arius ALSO claimed (in certain ways) to hold to a "literal Son".   And actually accused Athanasius of believing in a figurative mystical Platonic "Son" that had no beginning.  

But I was making the point that more NPOV had to be in the article's wording that the idea that Athanasius believed in a literal Son and Arius did not was a matter of opinion and IS DISPUTED by many.   I don't know.   I was only saying that I wanted to avoid an unnecessary edit war, over something that really should be agreed with, about neutrality and objective wording.  

Because it's a fact that Arius also claimed to believe in a "literal Son", ALSO.   I'm sorry if I came off too blunt about it maybe.   But to be frank with you, I really did not appreciate you summarily removing my edits with ZERO explanation, simply cuz you didn't like it.   Again, Dianna, the prior reading was too POV, and I simply made it more NPOV.  I hope this clears it up a bit.   I really meant nothing bad, but I do hope you see my points here.   Thanks.

Do you mean to say " Athanasius is claimed to have taken the first position"? The way it is worded does not have a clear meaning at present. Diannaa ^TALK 04:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What the article presently says is " St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position". What you want to say I think is " St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius are claimed to take the first position".

well, it's really simple.   Athanasius himself CLAIMED to have taken the "first position", that the pre-existent Jesus was a "literal Son".  And also it is SAID that Arius took the second position, that Jesus was a "figurative Son."   But the problem is that some believe just the reverse is in fact the case.   So it's disputed.   No matter what Athanasius may have claimed.  

The point though is that Arius himself ALSO claimed to believe in a "literal Son".   In fact, that was one of Arius's own arguments against co-eternity.   That no true son is AS OLD as his true father.

The prior wording was so biased and POV, it was like not funny.   For instance, there are NON-trinitarian churches, who totally disagree that Athanasius believed in a "literal Son".   In fact there are some Trinitarian theologians I know, and authors, who say the Sonship was "metaphorical".   (See what I mean?)   And some Arian Churches today claim that it was ARIUS who believed in a "literal Son" that had a beginning after the Father. My point is that neither one of those views should be stated as fact in the article, but rather that it is claimed that Athanasius took the first view, and Arius the second.   Because it's in dispute.   I just wanted (per Wikipedia policy) more objectivity and factual neutrality in some of the wording.   Not disputed opinion stated as fact.

I get your point but the way you are wording it is that the man merely claimed to have that view. What you want to say is that it is claimed he had that view? Do you see what I mean? Diannaa ^TALK 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What the article presently says is "St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position". I think what you actually mean is " St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius are claimed to have taken the first position". Do you see what I mean? Diannaa ^TALK 05:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

well, also, that Athanasius HIMSELF CLAIMED to have the view too.   Not just that others claim it, but that Athanasius believed that he held to a "literal Son".   But it's a matter of opinion that that's actually what went on, cuz some would argue "what son is as old as his real father?"   And also, Arius ALSO claimed to believe in a "literal Son" too.   So to say as before "Athanasius took the first view, and Arius did not" is blatant POV.   And POV should NOT be stated as undisputed fact in an encyclopedic setting.   That's all I meant.   You notice though that I did not put "Arius took the first view and Athanasius took the second" (whether I personally believe it or not) cuz I won't put my own POV in it, but I wanted to make it NEUTRAL point of view.  

And the fact is that Arius also claimed to believe in a literal Son, hence coming after the Father.  As other parts of the article state.  I just want to be careful that NPOV is what is seen in phrases and sentences, with things like this.   Nontrinitarian churches think Athanasius believed in a metaphorical "Son" from the pages of Plato.   So Athanaisus's supposed "literal" for the Son is in dispute by many.   So I simply made that part of the sentence more objective, with no slants one way or the other.

I think the meaning is garbled now. You need to word it " St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius are claimed to have taken the first position". Diannaa ^TALK 05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use the other wording it seems like you are implying they are lying about what their position. "He claimed to take that position, but his actual position was something else" is the implication.Diannaa ^TALK 05:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but like I said, it IS a fact that Athanasius HIMSELF "claimed" to believe in a "literal Son".   Not just that others claim it, but HE HIMSELF claimed it too.   That is objectively factual.   And I'm not saying that Athanasius knowingly was "lying" per se, but he may have been sincere in his thinking.   But it doesn't matter.   His claim is in dispute.   But he still claimed it.   Athanasius claimed it.  

What's in dispute is whether it was really true or not.   I personally have studied this subject since my teen years intensely, (and I'm NO teen now), and I know what Athanasius CLAIMED.....but I also know that Arius claimed the same thing, a "literal Son."   But Athanasius ACCUSED Arius of believing in a "figurative Son".   But later writings and words from Arius show that Arius in many ways believed in a "true Son", because that was part of Arius's very argument of the Son being YOUNGER than the Father.   Anyway, I hope this clarifies this a bit.   Again, the point is careful NPOV.   thanks for your patience....

Discussions like this belong on the talk page of the article, not my talk page. I did not appreciate your implying that I am the kind of person who engages in edit wars. Your tone was very confrontational. You know nothing about me and I think you spoke hastily. I removed your edits from the article because the meaning was unclear, not because I favour any point of view on the subject matter. I have to go to bed now so will respond no more tonight. Please post further discussion about the article on the article talk page, not mine. Others have a right to see the discussion and they will not see it here. Diannaa ^TALK 05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I know, but I wanted to communicate with you first directly, as a courtesy.   And as for the "edit war" remark, I was saying that I wanted to avoid that.   Also, I did NOT think the discussion was gonna last this long.   LOL.......Anyway, thanks for your time and input.   (And again, sorry for the misunderstanding.....I really meant nothing bad.)

Misconceptions

In keeping with various other Wikipedia pages that have sections designed to clear up common errors, I've added a "Misconceptions" section to deal with some of the more common misconceptions regarding the Council (mostly sweeping away conspiracy theories about things alleged to have happened at the Council that in fact did not.) Edits/additions welcome, though I'd suggest keeping it to the main, most common misconceptions. --Motley Fool 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motley Fool (talk • contribs)

That' s an interesting idea. I guess it is really better to describe and address the misconceptions in a separate section and not in other sections, where such descriptions seem out of place. And this section ([10]) seems to be written reasonably well, and well supported by secondary sources. Although there is an exception: the last subsection "The role of the Bishop of Rome". It is only supported by a primary source that does not really say what it claims... Thus I propose to remove this subsection. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it could be removed. The citation quotes the primary source and the addition gives analysis that borders on WP:OR. If a secondary source could be found that would be better. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I removed that subsection ([11]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed the discussion earlier. I agree that it would be better to have the "Bishop of Rome" section with additional secondary sources. I've added Schaff and reinserted it. --Motley Fool 02:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motley Fool (talk • contribs)

Yes, that is definitely a step in a right direction. The view of Schaff you added ([12]) is most likely a sufficiently significant point of view to discuss in this article. But it is not the only significant point of view. A Google search has soon found an article (Fr. James F. Loughlin, "The Sixth Nicene canon and the Papacy", American Catholic Quarterly Review, volume 5, 1880, pages 220-239 [13]) that represents another point of view. We should probably find a way to discuss it too - of course, without having any sentence incompatible with any of them... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that the statement that Constantine did not have much to do with part says it links to equip.org which is actually Christian Research Institute. Not an unbiased source of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.226.13 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yah because if it's from a christian site then if must be a lie right? How bigoted of you to say that just because it's from a christian site it can't be unbiased. Wikipedia is based on Secular Humanism so that means that anything it says about Jesus must be a lie? Why not say, "well that quote comes from a Jewish site and we all know that they can't be trusted" Christaphobic bigotry is just as bad as racism so knock it off.--69.14.96.9 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What equip.org says about Constantine being uninterested in theology and just wanting the Arians and orthodox sides to shut up and stop squabbling is a pretty standard historical argument backed up by primary sources. If you want an academic secondary source instead, try this. 'The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Vol.13, p.124' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.241.32 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

All claims that Constantine did it just to bring them together for no other reason but to make things more tidy is just hearsay and predictions by people in these late centuries. No historian from the time claimed this, in fact they claim the opposite saying that it was as he was a man of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Complete list of attending bishops?

Anyone got a cite for a list of either all the bishops that attended or of all the bishoprics that were represented? A list of the original 1800 invited bishops would be wonderful too but I believe that list is lost. 123.3.187.46 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer is no. There is a compilation of all the sources surviving that have been translated into English here. If none of them have a list of bishops, either the source has been lost or hasn't been translated into English.2.26.241.32 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Saint Spyridon the Shepherd?

After digging through all the references on the bottom, there is nothing there that says Spyridon was a shepherd and bishop at the same time. Each account says that he was a shepherd and then entered a monastery and then became a bishop. Can we get a citation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.244.94 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prohibition of self-castration

This was their first promulgated law? I mean, who thought it was actually necessary to create a law forbidding it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.242.7 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See Self-castration#Religious for Origen, for example. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." 75.14.213.104 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible confusion (homoiousian?)

There is a section called "Position of St. Alexander (Homoiousianism)" which appears to contradict itself, but because I am not a theologian/church historian and because I worry about whether jots and tittles (if you'll pardon the pun) can/should ever be significant, I ask someone else to make the change.

Should it actually say "(Homoousianism)"? I am fairly sure it should; else it contradicts the rest of the article. Should the word "Homoiousian" that appears in the third sentence also be corrected? Either could be true. —Felix the Cassowary 12:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

-Felix: certainly not. Whilst almost the entire article ought to be redone, because of severe inaccuracies (for a start, the creed which came from the council is the 'Nicene Statement', categorically *not* the 'Nicene creed' (which was created during the council of constantinople at 381), this is where the article is most seriously wrong. Homoiousianism (meaning LIKE in essence) is an ENTIRELY different position from Homoousianism (meaning THE SAME in essence); the distinction is crucial to understanding the period after Nicaea, where the Emperor Constansius pushed a Homoian policy which led some to Homoiousianism, a position explicitly against the Nicene view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.144.57 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Eusebius of Caesarea a supporter of Arius

Eusebius seems to have taken the moderate view. He was not a supporter of Arius and didn't teach Arianism in his own church. Even the misgivings he showed were not the misgivings of an Arian. If you look at what is said in the introduction and also the text of Eusebius' history itself you can see he was no Arian, even if he did plea for mercy. In any case he was no supporter. I wanted to post on the talk page before I took his name off the list of Arian supporters. Poetsong1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Emperor Constantine threatened Bishops to sign onto Finalized Creed?

The passage I have a problem with is, "The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides." Hmm, now why would Constantine feel the need to threaten any Bishop with banishment if that Bishop didn't sign the finalized Creed, when at least 99.2% of the Bishops (248 out of 250 Bishops) voted against Arius' position? Makes no sense! First came the vote, then came the signatures on the finalized Creed (based on the vote). Why would any of the 248 Bishops that voted Jesus to be of the same essence of God need to be compelled to place their signatures on the finalized Creed that they already agreed to when they voted for it?

One could counter with what about the Homoiousians, maybe some at the Council were Homoiousians and wouldn't have signed onto the finalized Creed, but felt pressured by Constantine to? Well, considering that Homoiousians was soon defunct after its emergence, there couldn't have been many at the Council who accepted Homoiousians in the first place. 173.73.134.86 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The threat was not to get people who agreed with it to sign, rather to get people who disagreed with it to sign. Constantine convened the council because he wanted to stop the infighting in the Church, establishing a creed and then allowing everyone who disagreed to just walk away as though nothing happened would't have helped that. So, anyone who did not sign the creed was banished (there were two bishops, and Arius, who did not sign and were exiled). Also, there were lots of Bishops in the Empire who were not present... so this also served as a precedent for what to do with heretical bishops in other parts of the empire.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Voltaire

Five years ago, I put this in: “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.”

Voltaire, was, of course, one of the five or so most gifted humans of whom we know. He would not - and could not afford - to make-up anything. He would have been looking at a source as he wrote. I was asking if anyone knew that source.

I did not expect some miscreant to remove my contribution, just they didn’t know his source. Indeed, such is the veracity of the man, he can stand for the source! and which yet remains in some Museum he had access to back then... Leave it alone! Others may value it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alipius (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean this edit - [14]..?

But no, I doubt there is another source (at least, a source we should care about). And I see little support for assertions like "Voltaire, was, of course, one of the five or so most gifted humans of whom we know." or "He would not - and could not afford - to make-up anything."... For that matter, it might be a good idea to give your own source - where exactly did Voltaire write so..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your anonymous and unknown definition

Who is a Most Interested Person?

Thank you, Lipsio for looking at [Wikipedia:BOLD] to whatever degree you did so. Please allow me to review a few things beginning with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#General overview, which I have also quoted just above.

Step one

First, you will note that First Council of Nicaea already had consensus on using the phrase "first post-apostolic ecumenical council". You will note that this consensus is evidenced by the phrase being there for a long time, with none of the many thousands of Wikipedia editors changing it.

You may or may not consider it a poor form of consensus since there was never a long discussion in the past about it for you to have particpated it, but it is none-the-less what we all consider consensus on Wikipedia. Is is however why you can always presume and propse a new consensus is needed... and can even edit boldly without a complete discussion first-- step one above.

Step two

Second, you would "wait until someone reverts your edit."

You notice that I have done so-- Hi, I am a Most Interested Person for the purposes of WP:BRD.

Step three

Now (or even before now) is when you should discuss the changes me. This is of course best done on the talk page. Since now yet been willing to do this I am posting here to help you out. I am, however, limited in saying much since neither you, nor the article itself, have brought forth a definition for an ecumenical council, a citation there-of, etc.

Your re-revert

You will notice that nowhere in the General overview or anywhere else in the bold, revert, discuss cycle does it recommend you re-revert to what you hope to be a "new" or "needed" consensus. This is rather recommend against-- as it begins WP:Edit warring, hinders discussion, simply puts up an edit that only one person (you) wants. Please let the old consensus stand until or unless we have new consensus. Thanks. tahc ^chat 19:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"You will note that this consensus is evidenced by the phrase being there for a long time, with none of the many thousands of Wikipedia editors changing it." Could you please show where the word "post apostolic" was ever there before two days ago? I must have missed it. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is my mistake. It must have dropped out some time ago. Thank you Eulenspiegel for bringing this to talk.tahc ^chat 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that it had ever been there. Over the course of my substantial changes to the article, I once re-did the info-box and, in the process, changed “Previous council” from “Council of Jerusalem” to “None”. That was subsequently changed to “Council of Jerusalem (though not considered ecumenical)” and I let that stand rather than commencing an editing war.

I have little time to pursue this but sometime soon will explain my reasoning and why I did not even consider the need to justify my “anonymous” definition. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit War: Holy Spirit in Trinity Section

User: Gabby Merger continues to add unsourced information regarding the discussion of the Holy Spirit at the council. This addition is the first mention of the Holy Spirit in the article, and therefore requires sourcing. Without sourcing it is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, or both. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I'm going to respond to this at User_talk:ReformedArsenal#consensus since that's where the main part of the discussion has been taking place. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to give my opinion, but I don't see why we should all transfer it to ReformedArsenal's discussion page, when this concerns improving this article, First Council of Nicaea. First of all, clearly Gabby's editing was not in any way vandalism, and accusations of being a vandal should not be thrown out lightly. Secondly, the edit warring went way too far; per WP:BRD the discussion about the article content should open up here, not just on the users' discussion pages. Now getting to the actual dispute, anything from a primary or secondary source showing what was discussed or not discussed at First Nicaea about the Holy Spirit, should be fair game for our consideration. I know there is at least some mention of it there, if you look for it. Per synth, yes, we should avoid boldly connecting dots that have never been connected before, but with all the wealth of material here it shouldn't be too hard to find a discussion of this somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I put my Third Opinion there so it would be with and in the context of the discussion I was commenting upon, but you're right, of course, and I've added a note there saying that any further or ongoing discussion should happen here, not there. (Or as I've always told my children, do as I say, not as I do. It hasn't worked out all that well with them, but maybe it will do better here.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. And I basically agree with your conclusion and summation. Though obviously the point was valid and true, it would have been better to put a ref citation (RS), to that statement, to avoid any issue.

I found a couple, just now.

In part, this source states this:

"Furthermore, the whole emphasis of the creed was on the divinity of the Son as well as the relationship between Father and the Son, it neglected the third person, Holy Spirit, in the Trinity."

And also:

"the discussion on the Holy Spirit became the major focus in the coming years."

From here.

The other source says this:

"Little discussion took place at the Council of Nicaea regarding the Holy Spirit."

From this pdf here.

This isn't a great source, since it isn't peer reviewed and is essentially self published. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting those refs, and restoring the statement. This should satisfy it. Unless the claim will be made that those are somehow not "reliable sources". Which would be, in my opinion, somewhat fallacious, since I see other sources in this article, that are pretty much of the same caliber. Some better than others, but making their points. The point though is that there are sources for this point about the Holy Spirit's role not being deeply discussed at Nicea. And I agree that sources should have been given. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Saying the "...the exact role or nature of the Holy Spirit was not deeply discussed..." feels like an assumption. One of the sources is from a Melinda L. Penner? I cannot figure out who this person even is. Their comment of "Little discussion took place..." does not seem to be sourced even in her document. The other source seems alright, but it is on a Chinese language site and that is a strange place to be getting a source on the trinity. Not against you, but it needs some rewording or solid backing. Hope that makes sense. Basileias (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Basileias. Listen, I implore you. Please let's not do this now. This is becoming silly now. And becomes obvious what's going on here. The front excuse now of "not reliable sources", when it seems that the real reason is more so "I don't want this information on here because I don't like that it's true". Listen...the sources are NOT "questionable"...especially the PDF one. Maybe the other one is a bit questionable, in a sense, but just because it has the "Chinese" thing, does that ipso facto make it so "unreliable"? The Melinda thing is there. Not sure why you don't see it. I went there just now in fact, and see these exact words in the PDF: "Little discussion took place at the Council of Nicaea regarding the Holy Spirit."

These people writing this stuff are not exactly taking it from the air or their backsides. They're educated people who have studied the subject, and this specific point is true. And has been known for a while now. What is the big problem here? The Son's nature and relation to the Father is ADMITTED to be the main focus in that Council. NOT so much the role or nature of the Holy Spirit. Why is that little elaboration such a big problem and issue??

I already addressed that in talk, that that will now be the new alibi excuse... They're sources, and by PhDs dealing with theology... Then the claim will always be "not RS" for "I don't like" reasons. There are many other sources in this article that are COMPARABLE to the ones I put. So what? I put sources that state the point clearly. How exactly are they not "reliable"? Simply because you say so? I mean, please. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I will ask again. Who is Melinda L. Penner? For all I know this is a babysitter. And just one Google search turned up nothing. Basileias (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gabby... you seem to think that there is some conspiracy to keep the fact that the Holy Spirit was not a primary discussion point of Nicaea I off wikipedia. Nothing could be further from the truth... I could care less if that was there (since it is true). But you need to have a reliable source that states it. The Source from Melinda Penner is not in bounds because it does not fit the requirements for WP:RS since it is not peer reviewed or published on a reliable source (STR is a reliable source in some circles, but not broadly speaking... furthermore, we don't know anything about Melinda beyond the fact that she publishes essays on STR). The Chinese language one isn't because it is Chinese, it is that we don't know anything about the institution... are the articles peer reviewed, what are the credential requirements for those publishing, is it considered a reputable source by other academic sources. None of these questions are answered. As far as why this is a big problem... it is because Wikipedia is an academic resource that has certain requirements, one of those requirements is that statements are backed up with reputable sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"They're sources, and by PhDs dealing with theology" - Even someone holding a PhD in Theology would be required to cite their source here... and I don't see where you're getting that the people publishing these things have PhDs.... ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added another source. The point too is that other editors earlier put it back to how I had it, but with a "citation needed" tag. And said to wait for sources to come in and NOT to remove the statement. Like Basileias did. Anyway, as I said, I found another ref, and put it in there, stating the point very clearly. This should really NOT be such a fuss and issue. I get the feeling that NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE IS, it'll be claimed (by people who simply don't want that elaboration in the article) that they're "not reliable". And I don't have time or patience for that kind of thing. The bottom line really is that: it's a fact, it IS sourced, and it's a fact that has been known. There's nothing untrue (or even un-sourced) about the statement. So let's please move on. This is a wiki...no one owns any one article. And valid modifications or elaborations, and even with sources by people whose field is theology and philosophy, etc, should be respected, not removed. The Melinda PDF is solid enough (IMO), and I just added another ref citation...from elearning dealing specifically with Nicea and the Holy Spirit. You're gonna say that "elearning" is "not peer-reviewed"? Are all the sources on the article already so "peer-reviewed"?? Please... Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No... elearning is not peer reviewed. I get the feeling that you don't understand what is required for WP:RS. Find a source that is from a published book or journal article and we'll talk. If this is as blatantly obvious as you seem to think it is, then this should not be difficult. Retrieving Nicaea by Khaled Anatolios might be a good place for you to start... or From Nicaea to Chalcedon. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is WP policy that all rs have to be "peer reviewed"? No it isn't. There are plenty of BOOKS that are used as "RS" all the time on WP. So maybe YOU don't know what RS has to be, if you seem to limiting it to such a narrow thing all the time. Also, given the context of the matter, that it's already stated that the main focus was "Christ's relation to the Father", then it it's almost a "sky blue" situation, with the point "the Holy Spirit, though mentioned, was NOT the main focus in Nicaea". Sky blue does not have to be so dogmatically anally "sourced". Not saying that this is quite like that, but in context it's somewhat comparable. Also, again, it's NOT WP policy that all sources have to "peer-reviewed" per se. Not all books or things (at least that I've seen) that are used as ref citations are necessarily "peer-reviewed". In some big drawn-out elaborate committee. But if the writer or author etc has a background in the subject, or educated in the matter. WP rules are there are no rules anyway. Being sticklers can also cause DETRIMENT to WP articles, where pertinent elaborations or information get suppressed, and articles are thereby arguably incomplete. Because of over-scrupulosity. Especially when it's SELECTIVE. And inconsistent. Again, this matter is simply an elaboration in context, and has been known and stated by many sources that are studied in the subject of church history, theology, and philosophy. No need to harp so much over this. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of scenarios where your "Sky Blue" conclusion might not be the case. Perhaps they viewed the status of the Holy Spirit as PART of the discussion (as would be the case in later councils) about the relationship between the Father and Son... whatever the situation is, we need a WP:RS who says so, not your own conclusions. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You violated 3RR earlier today, reverting FOUR TIMES. In less than an hour. I reverted only three at that time. You kept doing it, not caring. And with the same lame lies of "vandalism". Now you still say it's my "own conclusion". Stop the BS. I've tried to be somewhat civil, but I had enough of your neuroticism and bothersomeness, over something like this. The Holy Spirit was NOT discussed to the same extent, as the specific matter of Christ's identity, role, and relation to the Father. It's stated IN THAT VERY PARAGRAPH in the article SOURCED ALREADY. It's NOT my "own conclusion". That's another lie. I put three sources already, that you arbitrarily conveniently call "not reliable". Because (lol) "not peer-reviewed".  ??? As if WP policy demands that all RS be "peer-reviewed". Let's lose the nonsense already. No matter what source is put in there, characters like you JUST DON'T WANT THAT INFORMATION STATED THAT WAY IN THE ARTICLE. Because I can see from your page that you're a hyper-trinitarian, and it bothers you that the full-fledged "trinity" doctrine went through all that crazy debate and councils, etc, to be fully developed. You're gonna honestly deny that psychologically that's part of why you're so against this? You won't like ANY ref for that, so who are we kidding? Listen... Nicea did NOT conclude a co-equal "trinity" per se, and many Trinitarians don't like that fact, so they'd rather suppress it with BS alibi front excuses. I won't put up with it. I found three valid sources, no matter what you or that other editor say. Maybe not the best in the world, but at least 1 of them is valid enough. Your circular arguments I don't accept. This is NOT my own conclusion. Yes, the Holy Spirit was mentioned in Nicea, but NOT nearly to the same extent. You wanna believe otherwise? You prove it...with sources then. And get off my back and stop disrespecting me, and stop violating WP policy all the time. You did 4RR in one hour, so you technically should be blocked. And you blatantly lied in your edit comments, calling what I did "vandalism". I wanted to be civil, and maintain a measure of WP etiquette. You're not making it easy, sir. Because you continue with this. Enough, please. RS don't need to be "peer-reviewed". Stop making up rules that don't really exist. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed writings are news articles, books that are not self published. They have to pass through other hands for their material to become public. Certain websites could have people with noted credentials. They have to pass through other hands. Who is Melinda L. Penner? Did you answer this? Basileias (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is DailyCatholic.org reliable enough in your book? Is that "peer-reviewed"? Or is that passed through other hands, for their material to become public? Because DailyCatholic.org said that the Holy Spirit's role was handled in CONSTANTINOPLES's council...not Nicea...in their summations of the lists of councils. As I said, it doesn't matter. You'll find problems with any site, source, book, ref, dealing with this matter, because you personally just don't want this little elaboration, this little CONTEXTUAL AND LOGICAL ELABORATION, with its precise wording, in the article. So the suppression happens, with all kinds of transparent silly dishonest and weird front excuses. This is a semi "sky blue" matter. Given the fact that the article (and other sources in the article) state this obvious well-known thing already. The Holy Spirit was hardly discussed in Nicaea (though it was to some extent), compared to the Father and Son, and the Son's person and relation to the Father. It's a historical fact. Sources say it. Catholic (reputable) sources admit it. And there really shouldn't be all this craziness over this matter. I'm tired of it. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Now there is so much on this talk page I cannot keep track of anything. Some noted people would be Professor Dan Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Brian McLaren (Author), Bart Ehrman, etc. Not that these people have researched the love affairs of Nicea, but who is Melinda L. Penner? Why are you running to these second hand websites? Basileias (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

thirdmill.org

The most recently added source (http://elearning.thirdmill.org/theme/standard_thirdmill/lessons/APC4text.html) looks like something that was created in someones mom's bedroom. Basileias (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

They're scholars and historians and PhDs etc in the field writing this stuff. Not some guy down the street who writes a blog, who owns a pizza place. Also, similar sources are in other WP articles, with no complaint or problem. (Yes, I know for a fact...without anyone raising such nit-picky fusses about them.) If you expect THE perfect source, that fits every one of your criteria, then that's not always so easy. But I get the feeling though that it's NOT really the main reason, but the information itself that you don't like, and are just using that as a convenient and dishonest front excuse. You'll deny it of course...but let's get real.

TransporterMan agreed a bit more with me on this, to some extent, and said it could theoretically have been left alone. Or maybe at most just tagged. But it seems that you and Arsenal simply don't want that elaboration in the article, because you don't like it, for whatever reason, and will look at any excuse to get rid of it, which really is in violation of WP policy...with convenient excuses that all the refs have these problems that you'll uptightly hone in on.

Many things are written in 'bedrooms', so what, if the person is versed and has credentials in the field?? Again, to repeat, the article ITSELF says that the main focus was Christ's person and relation to the Father, so that then logically not as much attention was given to the nature or role of the Holy Spirit. To make THIS much of a fuss over that minor contextual logical factual (and yes sourced) elaboration, tells me that there's more going on here. I know human nature. It's hard to give benefit of the doubt, when each and every source you pick at, that is not done quite to the same degree, with maybe other statements, that you don't have as much of a problem with.

TransporterMan, though seeing the benefit of having this sourced, also said it could have been left alone too! And that if there was a question about the statement the better thing to do was simply to tag it, not remove it altogether. Read what he wrote. "The better thing to have done would have been to -tag it and leave it for awhile to see if a source could be provided". He's a bit more in my camp on this than you and Arsenal.

By the way, a couple of other sources now...it's stated by DailyCatholic.org (who accepts Nicea, and a co-equal Trinity, etc), that it wasn't until Constantinople (NOT Nicea) that "the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, with the Father and the Son" was dogmatized and affirmed. Another one (who is also Trinitarian, and who also accepts Nicea) Grace Communion International, on its article "The Road to Nicea, and Beyond" says "the role and relationships of the Holy Spirit would be the next issue to surface AFTER Nicea." I'm sure you'll criticize both those sources, for whatever reason again. Even though they have scholars saying this stuff, and even though they both accept Nicea, and are both Trinitarian. Also, again, the WP recommendation for stuff like this (if you have such a fuss about it) is NOT to remove, but simply to put a citation tag, or find one, or modify, etc, not to revert willy nilly... You don't like the sources, for whatever uptight reason? And do you think that the Holy Spirit was discussed to the same extent in Nicea? as the Son's relation to the Father? Then, as I told Arsenal, find sources yourself then that show that the Holy Spirit was discussed to the same exact extent as the Son's role and relation to the Father. The point is that it wasn't. And it's a known sourced fact. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, your ridiculous accusations about our motivation is unfounded... since I have said many times that I agree with the statement that you are making. The simple fact is this, you don't have appropriate sources for Wikipedia. However, to stop the arguing and edit warring... I'll simply do the work for you. I will update the article with an ACTUAL WP:RS for your statemnent. In the future, you need to work a little harder than just searching on google... If you turned on an essay for a class I was teaching with those things as sources, I would dock you major points... there's a lot of stuff out there that is disreputable, and Wikipedia is not a place to use them. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not say many times that you agree with the statement I'm making, but seemed to indicate some doubt about it in a way, and in fact said it was my own synthesis, and also you said above: "Perhaps they viewed the status of the Holy Spirit as PART of the discussion...about the relationship between the Father and Son". Giving the indication that you were not really in total agreement with the statement "the role and nature of the Holy Spirit was not deeply discussed, given the fact that the Son's relation to the Father was the primary focus". Again, though, there are some sources for it, that were not written by amateur bloggers, or pizza place workers, slapping a website together in their mom's bedroom. But phds and theologians, and scholars in the field of philosophy and religion and history. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from 'vandalism' Gabby was first accused of OR. OR basically insinuates that Gabby came up with this original notion all by herself / himself. I think Gabby has now more than established that she / he in fact did NOT originate this notion, but rather picked it up from reading external sources. But he / she is still being treated as if it is her original idea, because predictably, "the sources aren't good enough." And that's taking it to a whole new level, that awkward one where any random wikipedia editor can set himself up as the "authority who needs to be satisfied" and play judge, jury and executioner over the notability or reliability of each and all the references, no matter how many there may be. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think were down to "not deeply discussed," "unaddressed," "not the main focus" as a descriptive for our topic. While I too have had my share of go-a-rounds with the CombatArsenal, its natural for theological religions topics to get more scrutiny and editors to ask for established sources. I still do not have an answer on source Melinda L. Penner. Who is that?

I believe user Gabby is trying to just help and in their mind do their job here. This would be another and better [starting point]. The [Catholic Encyclopedia] could be another one. Drive-by websites are my concern here where expertise from their prior offerings have not been established.

Maybe if we started a new thread and made a list of all the sources and pull out the key points around Gabby's offering, that might shed some light. I am no opposed to the original insert, I just want to make sure it is in line with well established sources. Basileias (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)