Before the Nicean Creed, the battle for ideas among early Christians

[kirtland r.m.]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

[mes5464]

This sounds a lot like many of today's false doctrines are winning. Like homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism, and patriarchy.

[Theophan]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

[kirtland r.m.]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

Right, I did make that point about some believing In what the creed said before the Nicene Council in my heading( Before the Nicean Creed, the battle for ideas among early Christians). The majority of leaders at the Council sided with what would become Christianity's general description of what they believed the Godhead was. Too bad, not only do the Biblical scriptures almost always affirm that they are separate and distinct individuals(as when the Savior prayed to His Father, and all three being manifest separately at the baptism of Jesus Christ). This was one of many restored doctrines and as you know was believed by a number of the early Christians.This battle continues today.

[Lord of my dogs]

All I ever learned as a Catholic was;

Sit, kneel, stand. Sit, kneel, stand. Partake and you were good for another week of partying.

[Theophan]

All I ever learned as a Catholic was;

Sit, kneel, stand. Sit, kneel, stand. Partake and you were good for another week of partying.

That’s too bad. We Catholics worship God with both body and mind - our whole being. Every bodily position and gesture has symbolic meaning. For instance:

http://www.stpatricklemont.org/POSTURES_AT_MASS.pdf

[Lord of my dogs]

All I ever learned as a Catholic was;

Sit, kneel, stand. Sit, kneel, stand. Partake and you were good for another week of partying.

That’s too bad. We Catholics worship God with both body and mind - our whole being. Every bodily position and gesture has symbolic meaning. For instance:

http://www.stpatricklemont.org/POSTURES_AT_MASS.pdf

Hard to understand more than that when the Priest (who speaks to God for you) talks in Latin.

My oldest sister who went to Catholic school all the way through High school understood all the doctrine. Me being the youngest of six not so much.

[Theophan]

Hard to understand more than that when the Priest (who speaks to God for you) talks in Latin.

So pick up a Latin missal and follow along. That's what I do when I attend a Tridentine Mass. Most masses are in English now, anyways. Either way, we pray the Mass with the priest. Anyone who isn't praying during Mass is 'doing it wrong.' The whole thing is prayer, nothing but prayer, from beginning to end.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from. One question: did you not receive instruction? My aunt grew up Catholic and you sound just like her. The Church recognized the need of addressing the concerns you've raised and changed things in 1962. I love the Latin Mass, but Latin is a dead language. Without good catechesis, people are left to themselves to try to learn what's going on by themselves. Never a good plan. It was a double whammy back in the day. Everything in Latin and subpar catechesis. Catholics not knowing much about Catholicism was the result.

One thing the Church can learn from Mormons is how to keep the believers educated in the doctrines of the church. The LDS church does that very well.

[Lord of my dogs]

Hard to understand more than that when the Priest (who speaks to God for you) talks in Latin.

So pick up a Latin missal and follow along. That's what I do when I attend a Tridentine Mass. Most masses are in English now, anyways. Either way, we pray the Mass with the priest. Anyone who isn't praying during Mass is 'doing it wrong.' The whole thing is prayer, nothing but prayer, from beginning to end.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from. One question: did you not receive instruction? My aunt grew up Catholic and you sound just like her. The Church recognized the need of addressing the concerns you've raised and changed things in 1962. I love the Latin Mass, but Latin is a dead language. Without good catechesis, people are left to themselves to try to learn what's going on by themselves. Never a good plan. It was a double whammy back in the day. Everything in Latin and subpar catechesis. Catholics not knowing much about Catholicism was the result.

One thing the Church can learn from Mormons is how to keep the believers educated in the doctrines of the church. The LDS church does that very well.

My parents gave up on me and Church when I was 6. After that I was on auto pilot, but went sometimes. I do not doubt your love for the Lord and the Word of God, nor should you mine. My experience was just different. What is pleasing is that we are Brothers in the Lord's work. That will be the difference for both of us as we stand before God.

[Theophan]

My parents gave up on me and Church when I was 6. After that I was on auto pilot, but went sometimes. I do not doubt your love for the Lord and the Word of God, nor should you mine. My experience was just different. What is pleasing is that we are Brothers in the Lord's work. That will be the difference for both of us as we stand before God.

It totally agree. Jesus said it himself..."not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord..." Anyone who does His will is a Son or Daughter of God. Full stop.

Take care, my friend.

[gigarath24]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

Are there any books or other references where I could learn more about this?

[kirtland r.m.]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

Are there any books or other references where I could learn more about this?

Yes I have something for you, the highlights of the great apostasy thread where I took part of the James E Talmage Book and put it up on the freedom forum. I will put up a link later today when I get home. It has a lot of information and is really quite comprehensive from a really good book with lots of early Christian quotes.

[Thinker]

What makes more sense:
1) 2 men and a son... or
2) 1 Father, 1 Mother and a son?

Religion used to be more balanced in honoring feminine divinity as well as masculine divinity. Carl Jung (who studied symbols throughout the ages) wrote,

• "...immediate realities like husband, wife, father, mother child? These ordinary everyday facts, which are eternally repeated create the mightiest archetypes of all, whose ceaseless activity is everywhere apparent even in a rationalistic age like ours... The [Christian dogmatic] Trinity consist of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who is represented by the bird of Astarte, the dove, and who in early Christian times was called Sophia and thought of as feminine. The worship of Mary in the later church is an obvious substitute for this."

[kirtland r.m.]

Much Christian doctrine was corrupted quite quickly with a large variety of pagan ideas influencing and changing “sound doctrine”, and even some Jews unwilling to let go of some ideas, not compatable with what the Lord was teaching, and this Is still occurring even in the Catholic Church today in parts of the world where for example vodoo rituals and ideas are incorporated into local beliefs right along with Christian doctrine. I have seen it for myself in Asia, it happens in Africa, and in North, Central, and South America. And some Catholic leadership tries to discourage this, but some will go along with it, believing that these people are at least influenced by some Christian life changing information, mixed with what ever else they believe.

[Serragon]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

Are there any books or other references where I could learn more about this?

The Decline and fall of the roman empire covers all of the history Theophane references. Gibbon includes all of the references he used, so if there was a particular part of that history you wanted to drill down on you could.

[Theophan]

You, too, can be a scholar!

Instead of reading a book someone wrote about the Council of Nicea, or reading scholarly quotations from some book copied/pasted by someone onto this thread, why not cut out the middle man and do what good scholars do and read for yourself the very same primary sources that any scholar worth anything must rely on for his or her work? After all, there are only three surviving accounts written by eyewitnesses who attended the Council and that’s the only material that’s available that scholars can use to write their books. If someone writes about the Council but doesn't quote one or more of the three primary sources linked below, he's either quoting some other scholar, repeating hearsay, or is making it up. Either way, always check the footnotes!

So - You can skip the scholars and their interpretations and be your own scholar. Form your own interpretations – arrive at your own conclusions. Then you’re able to read the scholars’ interpretations and more productively know which ones are likely to be full of it. Reading the original sources for yourself is always eye opening. Every scholar has a favored point of view to defend, an agenda or an axe to grind.

There are only three surviving eyewitness accounts from the Council. All three of the following men were in attendance and wrote an account of their experience. The first two we have preserved in copies of the original, hand-written documents. The last one (Eusthasius), we only have preserved as a quotation in Theodoret’s ancient ‘Ecclesiastical History,’ so it’s not a true primary source. Until a copy of the original is discovered, it’s as close as we can get to the third eyewitness account.

Eusebius of Caesarea

Source: The Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini), Book 3.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2502.htm

Athanasius of Alexandria
Source: To the Bishops of Africa (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2819.htm

Eusthasius of Antioch
Source: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History (Historia Ecclesiastica), Book 1, Chapter 7
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2702.htm

Happy reading!

[kirtland r.m.]

Where did the modern day description of the Godhead come from that is used across Christianity? It was pushed forward and accepted at the The Nicene Council, hundreds of years after the Savior's Resurrection. Here is a sample of what happened.
Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.[22]https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _of_God.3F

I only have time for a few points.

First, the core of Nicene orthodoxy (God is an uncreated, immaterial spirit who created matter out of nothing) is older than the Council by at least 200 years. It’s not true that the trinitarian doctrine was invented at the council.

Second, there are two surviving eyewitness accounts from Nicea 1. Those of Eusebius and Athanasius himself. Both agree that, after debate, a vote was taken, with the majority (not a minority!, as FAIR would have us believe) of bishops in attendance voting for Nicene Orthodoxy. Constantine did not vote. Indeed, he was not a bishop and could not vote.

Sure enough, the emperor, in alignment with the majority and his intention in convening the Council in the first place, exiled Arius and his supporters.

This was not to last as, 10 years later, Constantine reversed himself, rehabilitated Arius and exiled Athanasius. The Empire was now officially Arian. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death bed. Athanasius returned after the emperor’s death, but he was soon exiled again. The next two emperors, Constantius II and Valens, were also Arians and continued the policy of suppressing Nicene orthodoxy.

This lasted until Theodosius II declared Orthodoxy the official Roman state religion in 381. Nicea I was in 325. The Empire was thus officially Arian for 46 years (335-381). A lot of people who don’t like the decision of Nicea I have no clue about this history, nor what followed.

That wasn’t the end of Arianism. Rome eventually fell in the late 5th century, after successive waves of barbarian hordes, all of whom were Arians, overran the West and conquered Rome. The successive barbarian kings of Italy and the Visigoth and Lombard tribes they ruled, were Arians. Arianism survived until the tribes were eventually converted by Catholic missionaries from Rome, a process of centuries.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman emperors (Byzantine), flip flopped back and forth between Arianism, monothelitism, and Nestorianism. Only Rome was consistently orthodox (with the exception of a single pope, Honorius, who caved to the Emperor. He didn’t last long in office. The Romans wouldn’t have it).

So there were the Bishops of Rome, hunkered down in the ruined city, surrounded by armed Arian enemies and subject to frequent interventions by heterodox emperors in Constantinople, who from time to time would wage war on the barbarian kings, to no avail.

This state of constant warfare lasted for centuries, wrecked Italy, and was the context for the Catholic missionary efforts that eventually converted the Arian Germanic barbarians.

It’s a miracle Nicene orthodoxy survived at all.

Are there any books or other references where I could learn more about this?

Here is the linkviewtopic.php?f=2&t=49038&p=872864&hili ... sy#p872864, here is a sample. At the bottom of my post is more information about the Godhead that you are specifically asking about.

Page 38 Paul recognized the fact that the people amongst whom he labored were losing the faith they had professed, and were becoming victims of the deception practiced by false teachers. In his letter to the churches of Galatia he wrote: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

Page 41 Orson Pratt. as follows: "The great apostasy of the Christian Church commenced in the first century; while there were yet inspired apostles and prophets in their midst; hence Paul, just previous to his martyrdom, enumerates a great number who had 'made shipwreck of their faith,' and 'turned aside unto vain jangling;' teaching 'that the resurrection was already past,' 'giving heed to fables...'doubting about questions and strifes of words whereof came envyings, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness.' This apostasy had become so general that Paul declares to Timothy, 'that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;' and again he says, 'at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me;' he further says that 'there are many unruly, and vain talkers and deceivers, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.' These apostates, no doubt, pretended to be very righteous; for, says the apostle, 'they profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.'"

12. Jude admonished the saints to be on their guard against men who were in the service of Satan seeking to corrupt the Church. Addressing himself "to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ," he said: "It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."--(Jude 3, 4. See Note 5, end of chapter.)



Page 42 During the banishment of John the Revelator on the Isle of Patmos, when nearly all the apostles had been taken from the earth, many of them having suffered martyrdom, the apostasy was so widespread that only seven "churches," i. e., branches of the Church, remained in such condition as to be considered deserving of the special communication John was instructed to give. In a marvelous vision he beheld the seven churches typified by seven golden candlesticks, with seven stars representing the presiding officers of the several churches; and in the midst of the golden candlesticks, with the stars in his hand, stood "one like unto the Son of Man."

Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, they are not Christians?

The Church’s first Article of Faith is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” This is a straightforward statement of belief that there are three members in the Godhead. However, Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.

“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes J. R. Dummelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later.”1 As Bill Forrest remarks, “To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian, is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus’ followers were in fact not really ‘Christian.’”2 Certainly the revelatory manner by which Joseph Smith learned of the doctrine of the Godhead pierces through the centuries-old debate on the subject.