I have seen a few attempts to liken Jesus Christ to Mohammed, and a few other prophets. Here is a clear defination of Who Jesus Christ really is.

http://my-refuge.com/?pid=1&sid=111:Jesus-Christ

Ummmmm.... Lemme try and summarise it. He was A Jewish Zombie

Christian scripture discloses Jesus as a man only. Not God. Not half God-Half Man. A man.

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, " Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Deep Sight: Christian scripture discloses Jesus as a man only. Not God. Not half God-Half Man. A man.

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, " Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Exactly. Excellent contribution!
Jesus was never seen God. In the fourth century AD, the Nicene Council, organized by Constantine, decided by majority that "Jesus is God" and that there is a trilogy "father, son. Holy spirit."
Jesus never said he was God, never wanted to found a new church, but changes in the Jewish church (to which he belonged).
It was at the Council of Nicea that "invented" the new idea that Jesus was God. (Constantine political interests).

Nobody thought then, which created the great contradiction that a god was killed by humans in the most humiliating that existed at the time.

It is important to read history, not just read the Bible.
The books do not bite!

Jesus is the son of God

1-Luke 1:35 "angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

2-John 1:34 John the baptist said "I have seen and I testify that this is the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

3-Even the demons said so in Matthew 8:29 "What do you want with us, [size=15pt]"Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?""[/size]

4-voice from heaven declaring the son of God in
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved [size=15pt]"Son;"[/size] in thee I am well pleased."

5-Matthew 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved [size=15pt]"Son,"[/size] in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

6-John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered and said to Him, [size=15pt]""My Lord and my God!"[/size]", Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

7-Matthew 17:33 "And those who were in the boat [size=15pt]"worshiped Him"[/size], saying, “You are certainly a [size=15pt]"God’s Son!”"[/size]
Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and [size=15pt]"worshiped Him."[/size]"
They worshiped him because he is God.

8-John 10:30 "[size=15pt]"I and the Father are one.”"[/size]

9-John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be [size=15pt]"God"[/size]." The Jews wanted to stone him because he said he is God

10-Luke 22:70 "They all asked, "Are you then the [size=15pt]"Son of God?"[/size]" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." and John 19:7 "The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the [size=15pt]"Son of God"[/size]."


11-Even Jesus asked the question to his disciples in Matthew 16:15-17 " He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the [size=15pt]"Son of the living God"[/size].” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!”

From the words of the apostles
Paul said in Colossians 1:15 "[size=15pt]"He is the image of the invisible God"[/size]..."
John said in John 1:2 "[size=15pt]"He was with God in the beginning"[/size]..."

Even a kid can know that Jesus clearly said He is God but some folks are blind, too blind to see it.
The most foolish thing a false prophet/teacher can do is to use the bible to prove that Jesus never claimed he is God nor desired to be worshiped.

Jesus is God!!!

The question is, Can anyone undisputedly prove that Jesus ever existed?

The question is, Can anyone undisputedly prove that Jesus even existed?

trent9002: The question is, Can anyone undisputedly prove that Jesus ever existed?

It is obvious you couldn't find anything to counter what I posted above hence this question of yours.

The bible is history and future, reject bible then you reject history and future

below -

below -

jmoore: Jesus is the son of God

1-Luke 1:35 "angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

2-John 1:34 John the baptist said "I have seen and I testify that this is the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

3-Even the demons said so in Matthew 8:29 "What do you want with us, [size=15pt]"Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?""[/size]

4-voice from heaven declaring the son of God in
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved [size=15pt]"Son;"[/size] in thee I am well pleased."

5-Matthew 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved [size=15pt]"Son,"[/size] in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

No one disputes that he is the son of God. We dispute that he is God. Even he disputed same.

And what are we all, if not sons of God?

6-John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered and said to Him, [size=15pt]""My Lord and my God!"[/size]", Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Thomas can say whatever he likes. Humans are prone to deifying their spiritual leaders.

8-John 10:30 "[size=15pt]"I and the Father are one.”"[/size]

Jesus himself explained what he meant here. That he was one with the father in the same way as his follwers are one with him. Now, are you Jesus?

From the words of the apostles
Paul said in Colossians 1:15 "[size=15pt]"He is the image of the invisible God"[/size]..."

The bible also says that you and I are the images of God.

John said in John 1:2 "[size=15pt]"He was with God in the beginning"[/size]..."

Being with God in the beginning of creation does not translate to being God.

Even a kid can know that Jesus clearly said He is God but some folks are blind, too blind to see it.
The most foolish thing a false prophet/teacher can do is to use the bible to prove that Jesus never claimed he is God nor desired to be worshiped.

Why did you completely ignore all the scripture I cited simply because you don't like the obvious implication.

Deep Sight: Why did you completely ignore all the scripture I cited simply because you don't like the obvious implication?

I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave.

Just to show the full verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly shows that Son of God is God.


And you skipped your wrong interpretation of the point below. It is interesting how you try to pick from point 1 to 8 I gave and left out point 7.

7-Matthew 17:33 "And those who were in the boat "worshiped Him", saying, “You are certainly a "God’s Son!”"
Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and "worshiped Him.""
They worshiped him because he is God.

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!

jmoore:

I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave. . . . .

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!

Of course, it's a waste of time.

Jesus IS God!

End of.

jmoore:

I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave.

Just to show the full verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly shows that Son of God is God.


And you skipped your wrong interpretation of the point below. It is interesting how you try to pick from point 1 to 8 I gave and left out point 7.

7-Matthew 17:33 "And those who were in the boat "worshiped Him", saying, “You are certainly a "God’s Son!”"
Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and "worshiped Him.""
They worshiped him because he is God.

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!

He had to wait almost 300 years after the death of Jesus, so that at the Council of Nicea the Catholic Church "decreed" that Jesus was God.
You WANT that Jesus is God ... but the Old Testament says otherwise, and 300 years after Jesus' death no one accepted it.
Jesus was an common man, whose aim was to perform a transformation in the Jewish religion. Jesus was Jewish, and never had the intention to build another church.
Accept it. Leave you lying to yourself.

It is a LIE that Christians had to wait till the Council of Nicaea to recognise Jesus as God.

This LIE has been previously put to rest. Anyone interested in learning and in intellectual honesty can start from this old thread: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting

jmoore:

I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave.

Just to show the full verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly shows that Son of God is God.


And you skipped your wrong interpretation of the point below. It is interesting how you try to pick from point 1 to 8 I gave and left out point 7.

7-Matthew 17:33 "And those who were in the boat "worshiped Him", saying, “You are certainly a "God’s Son!”"
Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and "worshiped Him.""
They worshiped him because he is God.

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!

Please define worship??...

We all know how d jews worshiped Yahweh...

If they thought Jesus was God all d priest should have offered sacrifices on behalf of d jews to Jesus...

But did they?

Jesus himself led by example how we should worship his Father becasue he worships him too...
That is why Jesus went to d synagogue,the temple which solomon built...


D problem with u guys is when ever somebody bows down or u hear d word bow down. Or worship then u think it always literally means exerting exclusive devotion...


If Jesus was God all d isrealites including his disciples and all of them would have made animal sacrifices in front him and directed it to him...

But did that ever happen.??..

How could u over look a scripture like john 20:17

U go about quoting worship here and there even when u know Jesus himself worshiped some1 higher and greater than he was....

if thomas called Jesus his lord and God isn't that his personal opinion

If Yahweh himself spoke from heaven and called Jesus his son to every ones hearing would it be reasonable to be holding on to thomas's view?

Yahwehs and thomas's view which should we uphold

Even Jesus himself said his Father is greater than he is,but humans like you say Jesus is equal or even mayb greater than his Father....

^^

Jesus is God The Son.

His Father is God The Father.

Ptolomeus:
He had to wait almost 300 years after the death of Jesus, so that at the Council of Nicea the Catholic Church "decreed" that Jesus was God.
You WANT that Jesus is God ... but the Old Testament says otherwise, and 300 years after Jesus' death no one accepted it.
Jesus was an common man, whose aim was to perform a transformation in the Jewish religion. Jesus was Jewish, and never had the intention to build another church.
Accept it. Leave you lying to yourself.

Enigma: It is a LIE that Christians had to wait till the Council of Nicaea to recognise Jesus as God.

This LIE has been previously put to rest. Anyone interested in learning and in intellectual honesty can start from this old thread: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting

The guy Ptolomeus is among the false teachers, he got no other quotes to make from the bible.

He will also claim that Matthew 17:33 and Matthew 28:9 was written 300 years after the death of Jesus.

Moreover that we now know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen doesn't make water not to contain hydrogen and oxygen before our knowledge of elements of water.

ijawkid:
if thomas called Jesus his lord and God isn't that his personal opinion

Why did Jesus not correct him if Thomas was wrong?

ijawkid:
Even Jesus himself said his Father is greater than he is,but humans like you say Jesus is equal or even mayb greater than his Father....

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.” Please go and learn the bible if you call yourself a christian.

@jmoore...

Nope u are the 1 who has thrown ur bible and chose to follow ur nicean ancestors..

Read Jesus's explanation of his being one with his Father...

Read John 17:20-23

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray
also for those who will believe in me through
their message, 21 that all of them may be one,
Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
May they also be in us so that the world may
believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given
them the glory that you gave me, that they
may be one as we are one — 23 I in them and
you in me—so that they may be brought to
complete unity. Then the world will know that
you sent me and have loved them even as you
have loved me.


Jesus used his own mouth to explain what he meant @ john 10:30...

U are just as impatient as the pharisees were who never waited for Jesus to explain truths to them even when it seemed vague to them....


Jesus said we should be 1 just as he and his father are 1....
We( christians)in him(Jesus),then he(Jesus) in Yahweh,then we(christians) in both Jesus and Yahweh.....
All amounting to unity....

Like ptolemeus earlier asked you:::ARE you JESUS since you and Jesus are one

Read ur bible my bro and stop being a nicean!!!!


Apostle bortressed dis point @ 1corinthians 11:3. Yahweh is head of Jesus just as Jesus is head of man.....

Got it

If Jesus is equal to his Father ,then we can equally say we all christians are equal to Jesus...

But is that possible

Yes it can if I hold on to d trinity....

I might start calling u God or Jesus after this discussion because we are part of d trinity too from your oneness analogy!!!

^^^

Ask yourself why Jesus called Himself "The Almighty".

Rev 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Ptolomeus:

Exactly. Excellent contribution!
Jesus was never seen God. In the fourth century AD, the Nicene Council, organized by Constantine, decided by majority that "Jesus is God" and that there is a trilogy "father, son. Holy spirit."
Jesus never said he was God, never wanted to found a new church, but changes in the Jewish church (to which he belonged).
It was at the Council of Nicea that "invented" the new idea that Jesus was God. (Constantine political interests).

Nobody thought then, which created the great contradiction that a god was killed by humans in the most humiliating that existed at the time.

It is important to read history, not just read the Bible.
The books do not bite!

The Council of Nicaea overwhelmingly approved a separate divine Jesus from God the father. However the bishops were mostly foreigners: Greeks, Romans, Egyptians who had a different cultural background from Jesus and understood his message in their native context. The idea of two Gods, namely Jesus and God wasn't repugnant to them, in short they were very familiar with it.

Christianity in essence evolved. The Gentiles actually broken off Christianity from Judaism.

jmoore:



The guy Ptolomeus is among the false teachers, he got no other quotes to make from the bible.

He will also claim that Matthew 17:33 and Matthew 28:9 was written 300 years after the death of Jesus.

Moreover that we now know that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen doesn't make water not to contain hydrogen and oxygen before our knowledge of elements of water.




Why did Jesus not correct him if Thomas was wrong?



John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.” Please go and learn the bible if you call yourself a christian.

gentleman
Thank you very much for calling guy, and understatement.
Each one is expressed, with her ​​intellectual level that you have.
I'm so glad you know the composition of the water. When someone is caught fanaticism like you, often confused water with alcohol.
Let there be a single parent does not mean that there is a trilogy. Nor if there is a child.
This is not discussing the existence of God (if you want to do) but, if Jesus is God or not.
I understand that you ignore what happened at Nicea in 325 AD, but that's part of their ignorance, and I am not guilty of that.
Read it! , Educate yourself, learn before you say, because be ridiculous is not pleasant.
Apparently you only read the Bible, and what is bad.
Also drink only water, and possibly virgin to avoid sins and saved from hell ...
Dear sir my greatest respect.

Ptolomeus:
I understand that you ignore what happened at Nicea in 325 AD, but that's part of their ignorance, and I am not guilty of that

All the verses I quoted were written before 325 AD, you are guilty of ignorance.

For the benefit of those who ignorantly or dishonestly still continue to claim the Nicaea Council as the souce of Christian recognition of Jesus as God, I repost a rather long old post from here: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702


I would like to add this Wikipedia entry to this thread and for a graphic presentation will actually make an extensive quotation of the entry. I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud.

From Trinity of the Church Fathers

The Trinity formula, in the sense of an expressed conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurred very early in the history of the Christian Church. This conjunction appears in two New Testament texts: 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the closing of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula, while the context of Matthew 28:19 shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. The oldest extant work in which the exact word "Trinity" (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Theophilus of Antioch's second-century To Autolycus. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not explicitly expressed in the writings of ante-Nicene Church Fathers exactly as it would later be defined during the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), namely as one substance (ousios) and three persons (hypostaseis). But their Trinitarian concepts did become defined with greater detail over time in this period.

Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD [1], wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.

“ Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. ”

(Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]


First half of second century or late first century: Didache

This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the second century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(Didache 7:1).[3][4]


ca.151: Justin Martyr

Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.”

(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]


169-181: Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place, The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. ”

(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]


Third century: Trinitarian theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism

In the early third century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which may be considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology. Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias). They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the third century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.


216: Tertullian

Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology. In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ”

(Against Praxeas 2).[7]


ca. 220: Hippolytus of Rome

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas (see above), claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross.[8] Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views.

“The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.”[9]


ca. 225: Origen

Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen develops Trinitarian theology is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches.

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages . . . .

It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son”[10]


ca. 256: Novatian

Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity.[11] It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence." [12]

“For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God.”

(Treatise on the Trinity 11).[13]


262: Pope Dionysius

According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-third century Pope Dionysius (Dionysius of Rome) a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. Athanasius quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea .[14] In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together . . . .

Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity, Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved”[15]


265: Gregory the Wonderworker

Gregory was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Asia Minor,[16] and wrote a Declaration of Faith which treats the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary.[17].

“There is one God, There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever."

^^^ Hi there. Just one question. Lets say you are adderssing a genuinely confused christian. Do you not think that there is sufficient scripture within the bible to suggest to anybody that perhaps Jesus is not God - and as such, become genuinely confused - Or is it your view that anybody who sees verses that suggest that to him, is simply being dishonest.

For example, if a Trinitarian Christian sees a verse in which Jesus says " Do not call me good, only God is good" - and thereby becomes confused or doubtful about the doctrine of the trinity -

1. Would you agree that such a christian can truly be reasonably confused and/ or doubtful about the doctrine OR

2. Would you conclude that such a christian is simply being dishonest.

Thanks, and hoping you will respond. Cheers.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Hi there. Just one question. Lets say you are adderssing a genuinely confused christian. Do you not think that there is sufficient scripture within the bible to suggest to anybody that perhaps Jesus is not God - and as such, become genuinely confused - Or is it your view that anybody who sees verses that suggest that to him, is simply being dishonest.

For example, if a Trinitarian Christian sees a verse in which Jesus says " Do not call me good, only God is good" - and thereby becomes confused or doubtful about the doctrine of the trinity -

1. Would you agree that such a christian can truly be reasonably confused and/ or doubtful about the doctrine OR

2. Would you conclude that such a christian is simply being dishonest.

Thanks, and hoping you will respond. Cheers.

I will answer only this question from you on this thread; I was heavily tempted not to answer but have chosen to do so solely for reasons of my own.

1. As for Christians who may be confused about "The Trinity", I will advise them to study the Bible carefully; learn, read up on and understand and not be/remain ignorant of important doctrines of the historic Church.

2. As to the point about "dishonesty" ---- I have referred to three things: (a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud.

A very bad use of interpretation. "I am in you and you are in my"
Very misunderstood.
I understand that like to read the Bible, and read only that, but is also good to read about history. Clarifies many things.
Without the Council of Nicea did not speak of trilogy.
Today you would not be defending the trilogy because it simply would not exist.
The trilogy was born as a political solution of Constantine, which was opposed by many bishops ( Nicomedia and Arius) but ended up accepting it.
Finally, if you cite the Bible (which is all they read) is expected to correctly interpret the passages.
thanks

Christians had recognised Jesus as God and had recognised The Trinity looooooooooooooooooooong before the Nicaea Council. It is ignorant or dishonest to continue to refer to the Council as the source of a concept that predated the Council.

No and totally Wrong. If you read properly, you would have seen by now that Christians accepted Jesus as God and accepted The Trinity loooong before the Nicaea Council.

Of course, people can choose to be ignorant or to continue peddling falsehoods.

We pull the same thing, right?
Please read something other than the Bible ... sometimes positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

First Council of Nicaea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Council of Nicaea
Date 325 AD
Accepted by Anglicans
Assyrian Church of the East
Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Protestants
Roman Catholics

Previous council Council of Jerusalem (though not considered ecumenical)
Next council First Council of Constantinople
Convoked by Emperor Constantine I
Presided by St. Alexander of Alexandria (and also Emperor Constantine)[1]
Attendance 250–318 (only five from Western Church)
Topics of discussion Arianism, celebration of Passover (Easter), ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.[2]
Documents and statements Original Nicene Creed,[3] 20 canons,[4] and an epistle[2]
Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The First Council of Nicaea (naɪsi:ə; Greek: Νίκαια) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter,[2] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7][8]

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Character and purpose
3 Attendees
4 Agenda and procedure
5 Arian controversy
5.1 Position of Arius (Arianism)
5.2 Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism)
5.3 The Homoiousian compromise proposal
5.4 Result of the debate
6 The Nicene Creed
7 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar
8 Meletian schism
9 Promulgation of canon law
10 Effects of the Council
11 Misconceptions
11.1 The biblical canon
11.2 The Trinity
11.3 The role of Constantine
11.4 The role of the Bishop of Rome
12 See also
13 Bibliography
13.1 Primary sources
13.2 Literature
14 References
15 External links

[edit] Overview
Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of NiceaThe First Council of Nicaea is the first ecumenical council of the catholic Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, extra-biblical, uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God (The Father), had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[9] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Derived from Greek oikoumenikos (Greek: οἰκουμένη), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire in this context as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6[10] around 338, which states "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical Council); Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[11] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[12]

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria[13]). The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides.

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an epistle to the Church of Alexandria in which is simply stated

We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you.[14]

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[5] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[5] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity.

[edit] Character and purpose
Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1000).The First Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba 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.[15] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[16] In the Council of Nicea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[17]

[edit] AttendeesConstantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[18] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[19] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[20] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[21] and Evagrius,[22] Hilary of Poitiers,[23] Jerome[24] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[25]

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; Nicholas of Myra, from whom the popular Santa Claus character would be derived; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[26] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[27][28] From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia.

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[26] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[26]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[29] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.[26][30]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[16] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[31] He was present as an observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[16] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[16][32]

[edit] Agenda and procedure
Fresco depicting the First Council of Nicea.The agenda of the synod included:

The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
The Meletian schism
The validity of baptism by heretics
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius[citation needed]
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. "Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous."[16] Bishops Theognis of Nicea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed.

The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops "but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning."[17] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed.

[edit] Arian controversyMain articles: Arius, Arianism, and Arian controversy

The synod of Nicea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians, from the Greek: ὁμοιούσιος from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being" later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[33]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[34] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.[35]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

[edit] Position of Arius (Arianism)Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had no existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,"[36] and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation."

[edit] Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism)Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the Father are one"; John 10:30). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"; John 17:21.

[edit] The Homoiousian compromise proposalThe Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance. This compromise position did not gain much support and eventually the idea was dropped.

[edit] Result of the debateThe Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[37] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

[edit] The Nicene CreedMain article: Nicene Creed

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism.

In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[38]

Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternality with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.
He is said to be "one in being with The Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.
Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians.

The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264–268), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops' common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements.

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.[13] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.

The Creed was amended to a new version by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

[edit] Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendarThe feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances.

As early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later 3rd century some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.[39]

Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.[40] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.[41]

The controversy between those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the month of Nisan as defined by Jews. Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called "protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed by the existence of sermons,[42] canons,[43] and tracts[44] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 4th century.

These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies. (See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not decree that Easter must fall on Sunday. This was already the practice almost everywhere.[45]

Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 15 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover" in the Hebrew calendar. By endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or negative, on the Jewish calendar. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that Easter must always follow Nisan 15 in the Hebrew calendar, was not formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de-facto state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 15.[46]

"At the council we also considered the issue of our holiest day, Easter, and it was determined by common consent that everyone, everywhere should celebrate it on one and the same day. For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be kept by all without variation, using the same order and a clear arrangement? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast following the custom of the Jews, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. Since we have cast aside their way of calculating the date of the festival, we can ensure that future generations can celebrate this observance at the more accurate time which we have kept from the first day of the passion until the present time...."

— Emperor Constantine, following the Council of Nicaea[47]