sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
I knew he was referencing the Nicean council. As you said, they determined what christianity is today. And your Yellow Hat Buddhsit analogy isn't quite appropriate. Weren't the people who took part in the Nicean council christians themselves? (people who held high positians in the Church actually).
In a related not, I'm quite annoyed by this part of what he wrote:
The Nicenes (Catholics and the faiths descended from Catholics)
Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't 'descend' from Catholicism, and Niceea was actually located in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (the part which has never been Catholic). It's quite ridiculous that people from the West pretend like those from the East don't even exist.
Oh, and I can't believe you used the word 'possibly' instead of 'probably', or better yet 'most definately'. (see bolded part in italics)
|
Well firstly. Pretty much all outside historical scholars suggest that Rome is the city written about in revelations, and that who it is written about is inconclusive, everyone has their own idea.
Secondly, there originally were no "high ranking" christians, outside of like... the apostales.
It only evolved poistions of "ranking" after it found it's way to the Roman Empire... and immediatly the Roman Bishop ended up being the highest ranking.
|
What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.
And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.
I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.
|
I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:
I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).
|
Extremely diffenet. At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.
The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.
It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.
By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity. Which was quite a bit.
By the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.
|
By the time of the Nicaean Council there was no Catholic Church. 
|
Er.. yes there was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The Catholic Church/Church of the West was the original church, you can argue "who stayed more true" or whatever... but the Catholic Church was the original.
