I'm picking this event, but I guess the question could in theory relate to any great recorded gathering.
Anyway, how were all the attendees summoned? How was an agreed date communicated across the whole geographical site involved? How did people travel? Was travel coordinated?
What happened at the event? Was there a register? What if someone important turned up late? What languages were used and how was translation utilised?
Any further information around those sorts of questions would be really appreciated! I've organised global conferences and it's incredibly difficult even with modern technology, so I was just fascinated by the logistics of this event. Thanks
Was it necessary? Why did Christianity need a unification doctrine considering most religions weren't nearly as organized?
I want to present this to this subreddit to hopefully head off some of the St. Nicholas v. Arius memes that crop up around his feast day on the 6th of December.
The story of St. Nicholas slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea actually didn't appear in any hagiography about St. Nicholas until a 14th Century (ca. 1370) account written by the Venetian Bishop Petrus de Natalibus recorded it in his hagiographical book "Catalogus sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis voluminibus collectus" interestingly, he makes no mention of it being Arius and just "an Arian". It pops up again about 200 years later in St. Damaskinos the Studite's hagiography of St. Nicholas where he mentions the appearance of the Lord & the Theotokos in defense of St. Nicholas' actions. Also, the Greek word used for "slap" meant the type of slap you'd give to someone to "slap them to their senses" and had nothing to do with violence or righteous anger.
The earliest extant records of St. Nicholas' life all do not mention him slapping Arius, nor even his attendance at the Council of Nicaea (his name also does not appear on early recorded lists of attendees). The only mention of Arius in early accounts of St. Nicholas' life merely mention St. Nicholas as opposing the heresies of Arius and Sebellius. One such account comes from St. Andrew of Crete's Oration 18, written in the early 8th Century. Likewise the account of Michael the Archimandrite (ca. 9th Century) makes similar mention. Both lack any mention of his attendance at Nicaea, and therefore also no mention of him slapping Arius.
Our own hymnography also lacks any mention of this event; only mentioning St. Nicholas' opposition to heresy and Arius once on his feast day, and this being in the Vespers Aposticha. Notably as well, the hymnography makes no mention of his attendance at the council of Nicaea. Much of his hymnography (especially the Canon) was likely written around the 8th & 9th Centuries; roughly contemporary with the accounts written by St. Andrew of Crete & Michael the Archimandrite.
It is also interesting to note that the stories of St. Nicholas slapping Arius come a full 500-600 years after the earliest hagiographic and hymnographic accounts of his life; as well as 1,000+ after he lived.
So I think it is important that we exercise some accountability and responsibility here. While the meme is humorous, I think we do the Saint a great dishonor by promoting a story that clearly has no basis in ancient hagiograp
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Iβm on the hunt for unbiased, agnostic books about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. They all seem to be Catholic published, and I just want the history without giving my money to a church.
Was it necessary? Could Christianity have flourished without it? Why or why not?
I ask because I've got three conflicting sources on hand:
H.G. Wells' Outline of History claims that Constantine "had little Greek, [and] was reduced to watching the countenances and gestures of the debaters, and listening to their intonations" (at the council of Nicaea).
William Durant, in The Story of Civilization vol. III says that Constantine "himself joined in the argument."
And James Carroll, in Constantine's Sword effectively says that Constantine all but controlled the direction of the debating at the council of Nicaea.
Thank you for any answers!
Arius is probably a name most moose are unfamiliar with in our modern age. He was a man who basically went against the divinity of Christ (like Muhammad) during a time when many denominations of Christianity were created due to differing interpretations of the divinity of the father and son, and how Trinitarian Christianity formed basically during this time.
Arian controversy arose inΒ Alexandria when the newly reinstated presbyterΒ Arius began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St.Β Alexander of Alexandria. The disputed issues centered on the natures and relationship of God (the Father) and the Son of God (Jesus). The disagreements sprang from different ideas about theΒ GodheadΒ or Father and what it meant for Jesus to be God's Son. But Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same sense that the Father is, coeternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son.[13][41]
Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is almighty and infinite, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creature
See what is happening here? Even b4 Mo there were people who rejected Jesus as son of God but just a prophet, which was heresy in the eyes of the Orthodox Christians So why did God need to send a new prophet when he could've made a prophet from the same people???
Ive read and seen some speculative ideas that Roman elite/politicians created Christianity. I believe Josephus was suppose to be a main author and certain events and symbols are suppose to point to some Roman emporors and or generals who dealt with uprisings jn the area.
Is there actual merit to this narrative? Is there more than a little smoke to support the claim that Christianity was a mostly Roman creation?
Is there any books that stand up to scrutiny on this subject?
There were some fairly big ideas discussed at the council. How long did it take for these ideas to take hold, and was there any meaningful resistance from either believers or clergy?
