Why? Because

[Fortigurn]

A study of the first Council of Nicaea leads one to beleive that a clear majority of bishops supported the trinity.

A majority of those who attended, yes. But only 250-318 of the church's 1,800 bishops did attend. Many didn't even recognise the council. It certainly wasn't a decision of the majority of the church (and therefore not an oecumenical council).

Some texts left out of the Bible do not even imply that Jesus was the son of God. Many entries in the gospel are ambiguous.
It appears this is a case of the victors rewriting history.

It is indeed a case of the victors rewriting history (though the textual issues are more to do with trinitarian interpolations than omissions).

However, the idea of the Trinity seems to a be mature one at around this time leading one to suspect that the this was not a new idea.

On the contrary, the intense controversy over the issue of the trinity (which had not been proposed formally prior to the 4th century), was precisely because the idea was not a mature one.

In fact much evidence suggests that this belief was around very early in the history of Christianity. Perhaps from the start.

I would like to see that evidence.

The idea that Jesus is subservient to God did not exist in the western communities. This suggests that perhaps the divine view of Christ was favored or more prevalent. Arius ideas, it appears seems to have originated in the east. Perhaps a branch of one of the earlier agnostic sects.

I would like to see the evidence for this also. It may interest you to know that at the Council of Nicea, only 5 of the bishops were from the West.

In any case there was great conflict and many more followers of Arius than a cursory examination would suggest.

Very much so. It's also worth noting the support which Arius received from church councils, and the repeated excommunication of Athanasius.

[Jbuza]

Fortigurn it appears that your most important beliefs are that the trinity cannot be and Jesus is not God.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn it appears that your most important beliefs are that the trinity cannot be and Jesus is not God.

Actually my most important belief is probably Genesis 1:26. Everything else follows.

[Byblos]

Fortigurn it appears that your most important beliefs are that the trinity cannot be and Jesus is not God.

Actually my most important belief is probably Genesis 1:26. Everything else follows.

I find it puzzling that gen 1:26 is your most important belief yet you do not believe that we have body and spirit, at least in the sense that they can be separated (or do you?). Since God does not have a physical image, in what image do you then think God created us? If you say in his spiritual image, then why do you subscribe to the belief that body and spirit cannot be separated?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... /nicea.htm

Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.

You have not shown that the small percentage of bishops did not represent the Church. You do realize, for example, that numbers as small as 1,000 are used to represent the opinions of about 270,000,000 people. As the church did not have so many people, 300-400 seems to be enough to represent the church.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn it appears that your most important beliefs are that the trinity cannot be and Jesus is not God.

Actually my most important belief is probably Genesis 1:26. Everything else follows.

I find it puzzling that gen 1:26 is your most important belief yet you do not believe that we have body and spirit, at least in the sense that they can be separated (or do you?).

I believe in what the Bible says - that we consist of a body which has within in the the breath of life. Note that even in the KJV God is said to have breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a 'living soul'. Man was not given an 'immortal soul'.

The breath of life which is in us is exactly the same breath of life which is in all living creatures:

Genesis 2:
7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 7:
21 And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

It's very clear. Nowhere is an 'immortal soul' referred to.

Since God does not have a physical image, in what image do you then think God created us? If you say in his spiritual image, then why do you subscribe to the belief that body and spirit cannot be separated?

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual image'. Secondly, God certainly doesn't have a physical image, but certainly does choose to represent Himself anthropomorphically, so we can say that we are literally in the image and likeness of the form He chooses to represent Himself (a humanoid form).

Thirdly, I do believe that this refers not only to the form in which God chooses to represent Himself (a form which is obviously also shared by the angels), but that it relates to God's personal character, which can be expressed visibly by His actions, and by the actions of those who live likewise (see Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7, Matthew 5:16).

[Fortigurn]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... /nicea.htm

Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.

You have not shown that the small percentage of bishops did not represent the Church.

I didn't say they didn't represent the church, I said that by definition the decision was not made by the entire church.

You do realize, for example, that numbers as small as 1,000 are used to represent the opinions of about 270,000,000 people.

No, I know that numbers as small as 1,000 are used to represent a widespread opinion among a general population.

As the church did not have so many people, 300-400 seems to be enough to represent the church.

Unless we can demonstrate that the opinion of the 300-400 was the accurate representation of the total 1,800 bishops, and the accurate representation of the entire Christian body, we cannot say that.

What we do know is that the opinion of the 300-400 bishops was neither the majority opinion of the 1,800 bishops, or of the church (which was in the main Arian).

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

It's very clear. Nowhere is an 'immortal soul' referred to.

Because they are only talking about man's physical life. Whoda thunk it. Also, you leave out verses that do talk about an immortal sou.

#
# Genesis 35:18
It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Mt 10:28 - Show Context"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mt 16:26 - Show Context"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mr 8:36 - Show Context"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?

Ac 2:27 - Show ContextBECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES , NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

What we do know is that the opinion of the 300-400 bishops was neither the majority opinion of the 1,800 bishops, or of the church (which was in the main Arian).

You have not demonstarted this. You just declare it dogmatically, but you do not defend it dogmatically.

You also leave out Jesus' apostles, as well as men like Paul.

I didn't say they didn't represent the church, I said that by definition the decision was not made by the entire church.

Of course not. But 300-400/1800 bishops IS a good representation-that is 16% to 17% of the bishops at the council...when 1,000 random people in America is only .00037037% of the population.

[Jbuza]

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

Did you read the next verse Fortigurn? IT tells of the difference between Man and animals, also your Word Fate is a little questionable.

[Fortigurn]

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

Did you read the next verse Fortigurn?

Yes I did. What's your point?

IT tells of the difference between Man and animals...

Really?

Ecclesiastes 3:
21 Who really knows if the human spirit ascends upward, and the animal's spirit descends into the earth?

How so?

...also your Word Fate is a little questionable.

It's not my word. That's a standard evangelical translation. I didn't write it.

[Jbuza]

What translation are you using?

From Young's

18I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves [are] beasts.

19For an event [is to] the sons of man, and an event [is to] the beasts, even one event [is] to them; as the death of this, so [is] the death of that; and one spirit [is] to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole [is] vanity.

20The whole are going unto one place, the whole have been from the dust, and the whole are turning back unto the dust.

21Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of man that is going up on high, and the spirit of the beast that is going down below to the earth?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

This is the problem of being a genius...nobody responds to you when you get going.

[Jbuza]

So do you believe that we cease to exist when we die like the animals, or do you believe that the animals will be judged also?

[Jbuza]

This is the problem of being a genius...nobody responds to you when you get going.

ummm. Don't know what to say. Nothing wrong with being convinced that what you believe is true is there?

[Fortigurn]

It's very clear. Nowhere is an 'immortal soul' referred to.

Because they are only talking about man's physical life. Whoda thunk it.

Well that's exactly the point, isn't it? What the Bible refers to as 'soul' is the physical life.

That's why we find:

* 242 times 'souls' subject to death (as in Psalm 22:29; Ezekiel 18:4)

* 13 times 'souls' actually dead (as in Isaiah 53:12)

* 13 times 'souls' going to the grave (as in Job 33:22)

What you have to do is show me where we are told about the immortal soul. The one passage I have been offered so far which allegedly speaks of God putting an immortal soul in man, has been demonstrated to be saying no such thing.

Also, you leave out verses that do talk about an immortal sou.

Genesis 35:18
It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Mt 10:28 - Show Context"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mt 16:26 - Show Context"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mr 8:36 - Show Context"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?

Ac 2:27 - Show ContextBECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES , NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

I'm sorry, but where do those passages speak of an 'immortal soul'? Good grief, one of them even speaks of the 'soul' being 'destroyed'.

What we do know is that the opinion of the 300-400 bishops was neither the majority opinion of the 1,800 bishops, or of the church (which was in the main Arian).

You have not demonstarted this. You just declare it dogmatically, but you do not defend it dogmatically.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were all aware of this part of church history.

You also leave out Jesus' apostles, as well as men like Paul.

I don't believe they were there. Do you?

Of course not. But 300-400/1800 bishops IS a good representation-that is 16% to 17% of the bishops at the council...when 1,000 random people in America is only .00037037% of the population.

We know that it is not a good representation of the view of the entire church, because of the fact that the Council's decision was not accepted by a large number of the bishops (especially in the East), and that the controversy over the nature of God and Christ continued to divide the church (with Athanasius actually being condemned and exiled, though later returned to favour).

Thirty years after the Nicene Council, Jerome remarked that the world 'awoke with a groan to find itself Arian'.