Talk:First Council of Nicaea: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:24, 1 March 2006

Latest revision as of 00:08, 21 May 2025

(718 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{facfailedTalk header}}

{{Article history

|action1=FAC

|action1date=2005-05-02, 08:18:01

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive

|action1result=not promoted

|action1oldid=13162926

|action2=FAC

''An event mentioned in this article is a [[MediaWiki:May 20 selected anniversaries|May 20 selected anniversary]]''

|action2date=2006-03-29, 05:45:35

----

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive2

|action2result=not promoted

|action2oldid=45231140

|action3=FAC

What was the result of this council ? [[:Taw|Taw]]

|action3date=2006-05-31, 15:23:49

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive1

|action3result=not promoted

|action3oldid=56071372

|action4=GAN

----

|action4date=2006-08-04, 14:46:38

|action4link=

|action4result=listed

|action4oldid=67291029

|action5=PR

Changed text to show that the 1st council was not the beginning of the controversies, but the first church-wide attempt to deal with them. Had there been no controversies, there would have been no need for the council. [[User:JHCC|JHCC]] 14:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

|action5date=02:23, 4 May 2007

|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/First Council of Nicaea/archive1

|action5result=reviewed

|action5oldid=125688084

|action6=GAR

----

|action6date=15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

|action6link=

|action6result=kept

|action6oldid=234798439

|action7=GAR

Does anybody have a citation for Athenasius' count of 318 bishops in attendance? I can find no mention of the attendance in any of his works, and I find the number suspect since it was also the year of Arius' excommunication. -Peter

|action7date=15:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/First Council of Nicaea/1

|action7result=delisted

|action7oldid=727227874

|currentstatus=DGA

6 June 2004: I've found the citation for the "318" figure. It's Socrates Scholasticus, Book I, Chapter 8, section 10. Updating as required. -Peter

|topic=History

|otd1date=2004-05-20|otd1oldid=6718046

|otd2date=2005-05-20|otd2oldid=13723543

|otd3date=2006-05-20|otd3oldid=53948787

|otd4date=2007-05-20|otd4oldid=132123310

|otd5date=2008-05-20|otd5oldid=213643757

|otd6date=2009-05-20|otd6oldid=291076020

|otd7date=2010-05-20|otd7oldid=363142265

|otd8date=2011-05-20|otd8oldid=430063693

|otd9date=2013-05-20|otd9oldid=555823299

|otd10date=2016-05-20|otd10oldid=721287184

|otd11date=2025-05-20|otd11oldid=1290491902

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=High |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=High |eastern-orthodoxy=yes |eastern-orthodoxy-importance=High |syriac-work-group=yes |oriental-orthodoxy=yes |oriental-orthodoxy-importance=High |history=yes |history-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Catholicism|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Greece|importance=Mid|byzantine-task-force=yes}}

{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Diannaa|date=March 14, 2010}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 70K

|counter = 5

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:First Council of Nicaea/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

== Community reassessment ==

----

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/First Council of Nicaea/1}}

I added the Wikification tag under the second section. --[[User:Bastique|Bastique]] 15:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC))

== Macarius of Jerusalem ==

-----

Bishop Theognis of Nice, links to [[Nice]], France it seems a wrong link to me ? [[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 20:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*I modified the link to [[Theognis of Nice]] as well as the other fellow, but now they go nowhere. Someone needs to write some articles! --[[User:Bastique|Bastique]] 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article claimed, uncited, that [[Macarius of Jerusalem]] was among the foremost attendees and named him "patriarch". This is incorrect. Jerusalem (still known by its Roman name of Aelia) was probably a dependency of either Caesarea or Antioch at the time, so not even self-governing let alone a patriarchate. It was not until this council rendered its canons, in fact, that Jerusalem gained a measure of independence. It would actually be another century before Jerusalem gained full recognition as one of the chief sees. While Macarius was certainly influential at the council, and was a prominent spokesman for the eventual winning side, he was not by any means a "patriarch". See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html [[Special:Contributions/192.91.171.36|192.91.171.36]] ([[User talk:192.91.171.36|talk]]) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

== Nicaea creates orthodoxy? ==

I agree that it would be best to use talk for this, as I really think your addition misleading.

== Domnus of Stridon ==

I don't understand in what sense you think Nicaea 'created' orthodoxy, that did not exist before? It created a creed; but we don't find the idea that the Christian religion is created at Nicaea in the fathers. Indeed, why Nicaea rather than Chalcedon?

[[Domnus of Stridon]] as one of only five attendants of the council from Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's book ''[https://ia802702.us.archive.org/16/items/patrumnicaenoru00cuntgoog/patrumnicaenoru00cuntgoog.pdf Patrum Nicaenorum nomina]'' the index of council fathers lists only Budius of [[Stobi]] (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of [[Pannonia]], listed directly after him. In one of the list Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitamis (of metropolis). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out by [[Frane Bulić]] in his article ''[https://archive.org/stream/stridongrahovopo00buli/stridongrahovopo00buli_djvu.txt Stridon]'' (page 13) as early as 1920. --[[User:Janezdrilc|Janezdrilc]] ([[User talk:Janezdrilc|talk]]) 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

:It was the first [[Ecumenical council]], from which many more would follow. What was the purpose of Ecumenical Councils? To create creeds, or commonly held beliefs that everyone could follow, the creation of orthodoxy. It doesnt say the council of nicea "created Christianity", why do you say that, who could believe that? Chalcedon happened in 451, why compare that with Nicea from 325? I really think your mis-interpreting whats written. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 8 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

: ''Talk translated to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domnus of Stridon]].'' --[[User:Janezdrilc|Janezdrilc]] ([[User talk:Janezdrilc|talk]]) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

::Not sure I understand. It was the first ecumenical council -- that, I agree is a fact. But it is not the same as saying 'it created orthodoxy'. I disagree with your statement about the purpose of ecumenical councils; to create a creed, to resolve a dispute, is not to create orthodoxy. What did Nicaea do that Chalcedon did not?

== Why are there two "Arian controversy" and "Role of Constantine" sections? ==

:::Ive removed "orthodox" since this seems to be a source of confusion and refined and added some additional significance. See the articles [[creed]], [[Nicene Creed]], [[orthodox]] and [[Ecumenical council]] -- they all pretty much support what i was saying and am saying now, as do external sources which can be cited if needed. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 19:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The first one feels entirely redundant and basically just repeats what will later be described in the article. ([[User talk:Not0nshoree|Discuss]] [[User:Not0nshoree|'''''0nshore's''''']] [[Special:contributions/Not0nshoree|contributions!!!]]) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

== Suggestions ==

Thank you for revising this paragraph, which is immensely better. Some comments:

: Bringing up this and several other points has long been on my "To Do" list.

:The Council of Nicea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly the claimed to represent all of Christiandom.

: "Arian presentation" is "Procedure" is also redundant to the two "Arian controversy" sections. "3.1 The Nicene Creed", "6.3 The Nicene Creed", and "8 Nicene Creed" are redundant, as are "3.2 Easter" and "9 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar". "3.1 The Nicene Creed" and "3.2 Easter" should not be part of "3 Arian Controversy".

I think this is probably correct as stated, although there had been councils before this.

: I'll type more later and propose re-organizing. [[User:Lipsio|Vincent J. Lipsio]] ([[User talk:Lipsio|talk]])

::*No councils that fit that description, that claimed to represent all of Christiandom. This gets back to "orthodoxy". Somthing is othodox if everyone agrees to it. That's what Nicaea did for the first time, created an orthodoxy. Im not making it up, I'd be happy to cite sources on this.

=== Proposed re-organization ===

:::I hardly think Athanasius would agree that something is orthodox if everyone agrees to it! But instead of opinion, why not cite your (ancient) sources? That would be useful to everyone. The earlier councils were not universal, of course, but nevertheless represent the same process, surely?

Sections "5 Agenda", "6 Procedure", and "x. Results" should all have the same sub-sections.<br>

Perhaps these:

.1 Arian Controversy

.2 The Melitian schism

.3 Date of Easter

But, let me note, the latter two sort of melt into the promulgation of canon law and, methinks, are difficult to distinguish from other matters; however, at least as a starting point, I'd opt for these three sets of sub-sections.

Next in my priorities would be the order and length and the main sections:

:It was the first occasion for the development of Christology.

Ecumenical Council (a bit shorter with a <nowiki>{{Main|Ecumenical council}} or {{See also|Ecumenical council}}</nowiki> . )

Agenda

Procedure

Results (or Outcome)

Promulgation of canon law

Effects (some of the above, e.g., "Exiled", belong here.)

Misconceptions (some of the data on the date of Easter, including the recently edited-out "Zonaras proviso", belong here.)

Attendees

Role of Constantine

Disputed matters (much abridged or omitted, as most are included in "Promulgation of canon law" or are out of scope.)

[[User:Lipsio|Vincent J. Lipsio]] ([[User talk:Lipsio|talk]])

Following on the discussion from above, in addition to organization (which is certainly choppy and repetitive), the article seems to need some source work. The extensive ''Cambridge Companion'' (2021) is not used at all, and Ayres' and Anatolios' monographs seem to be underused. There seems to be an overuse of primary sources. I'm working through the Cambridge Companion, and re-reading Hanson, Ayres, and Anatolios to reacquaint myself. In line with the notice at the top of the page and the proposal by [[User:Lipsio|Vincent J. Lipsio]], I'd suggest a simpler structure with four main headings (basically following the structure of the Cambridge Companion):

Hmm. Are you sure? I had always thought that the Nicene definition was about the nature of the godhead, and the Christological disputes took place in subsequent councils, esp. Chalcedon (I've been reading a lot of Nestorian writers lately, hence why its on my mind).

*Background

**Arian Controversy (or Alexandrian controversey, which may now be preferred in literature) - origin of the controversey in Alexandria and the attempts to resolve it within the Church, including the Council at Antioch

**Meletian schism (prominent enough to warrant its own section)

**Constantine and calling of the Council - background on Constantine's and the Empire's relationship to the Church, and his decision to move the Council to from Ancyra to Nicaea and invite all the bishops of the ecumene

*Proceedings

**Attendance and logistics

**Debates - basically the current top sections "Procedure" and "Arian controversey"

**Role of Constantine - relevant material from sections 4 and 13

*Outcomes

**Formulation of the Nicene Creed - current section 8

**Canon law

**Computation of Easter

**Misconceptions

*Reception and Legacy

**Ecumenical councils - beginning of the "idea" of ecumenical councils and the use of Nicaea in future councils

**Catholic Church

**Orthodox Church

**Protestants - material from "disputed matters

I'm going to do some sandbox drafting as I read. Any further thoughts on structure?

::*Yes I'm sure. It addressed the issue of of the [[Arian]] heresy. See [[Christology]]. I can also provide citations.

Also, would anyone be opposed to using a [[Template:Sfn|short footnote]] reference style in the article? It's very easy to use and helps better link citations to the bibliography (currently the two don't match up). [[User:Seltaeb Eht|Seltaeb Eht]] ([[User talk:Seltaeb Eht|talk]]) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Christology is about the nature of Christ Jesus, the two/one natures, etc. Arianism was a heresy concerned with the second person of the Trinity, not with the incarnation. I think the opinion of a professional would be the best thing to seek here. Everything trinitarian can be defined as a question of Christology in a way; but I think the usage is different.

:Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church.

It isn't quite clear that he presided over it -- he did sit on the throne in the hall, and address participants. Sozomen, Theodoret and Socrates Scholasticus state that he convened the council (but I have some doubts on this -- I'm sure I have read an earlier ancient account that suggests that the council was already assembling at Ancyra, and that Hosius of Cordova persuaded the emperor to pay the bills, so Western bishops could attend, and so it was held at Nicaea).

::*It is the mainstream view that he is the one who convoked the council and he was the ultimate authority.

:::This seems to be an appeal to authority rather than evidence, and I (and most people) dislike this. But if there is a printed statement by a mainstream scholar (ideally in a study of the historiography) to this effect, shouldn't we have that in the article? Whether they are right is another matter. Because...

:::...the historical record shows a Constantine deferential to the assembled fathers, not acting as or seen as the ultimate religious authority. Think of Constantius, who really did try this on, and how he is presented in the texts.

::He didn't have to physically always be there, I imagine, just as the founder of Wikipedia doesnt have to be at everywhere, but he was the ultimate authority which is what is meant by presiding over, not to be taken literarlly.

:::Possibly we're talking about different things. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia (for instance) you will find a different view, that Hosius of Cordova presided. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the source on which this is based. If we're saying 'the emperor had all the real power in the empire', then that is true (-ish) but not really relevant as a statement specifically about Nicaea, surely?

On the other point: T.D.Barnes in 'Constantine and Eusebius' makes the point that Constantine's religious policy was hamstrung by his refusal (unlike his successors) to interfere in church matters. But it is certainly the case that the precedent of imperial involvement was exploited by his successors. How about "Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council set a precedent of state involvement in Christian disputes over doctrine"?

::*It was more than Christian disputes, just focusing on that looses the real significance. In the East the line between Imperial and Church blurred they became one and the same almost.

:::This seems to project the situation in the 5th century into the early 4th century, tho. I don't think we should do this. Half a century of development, and a pagan reaction, stand between these events.

::This is significant and important in the development of the east and west, where in the west we have a clear separation of Church and State, unlike in the east (and many other places) where such a concept was foriegn, although that needs to be expanded on in the body of the article and not the intro paragraph.

I agree, but I am quite unsure that we can state all this as fact (rather than opinion) and relevant to Nicaea. It can't become an issue any earlier than Christianity is the state religion, with Theodosius. I think also we need to be a bit wary. I can see you aren't Eastern Orthodox, and neither am I; but they might well have a different view on the relation of church and state than seems to be the case to us. Even Justinian is treated as a heretic.

::How about "Further, Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council set a precedent of state involvement in the Christian Church in the eastern Empire which was unknown in the Western empire."

:::Hmm. Perhaps. Maybe "less known in the Western empire" (thinking of Sirmium)?

:Finally it drew up a statement of the fundamental beliefs to which Christians would adhere, which would become known as the Nicene Creed.

I'm not sure that I agree that the Nicene creed is 'the fundamental beliefs to which Christians adhere.' There are a great many things not mentioned in it, which are fundamental and were so then. It really excludes certain things, rather than being a comprehensive statement.

::*This could be reworded, but the significance of the nicene creed, the end-result of the council, needs to be mentioned.

:::Agreed. Finding some words which are not an opinion on the significance is harder tho, isn't it? Hmmm... (thinking) The significance is perhaps that it set the pattern for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which was intended to become binding on all Christians (didn't always manage this)? This is not recorded of any earlier council, after that in the Acts.

:It would serve to unify the Church and provide a clear guideline on what it meant to be a practicing Christian,

::It was intended to unify the church. But the second part suggests that people didn't know -- and they did.

::*"..and provide clear guidelines over disputed matters..."

:::Sounds good.

: a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

::Not sure I understand what is being said here.

::*It's a high-level summation of the preceeding points. The Council was momentus in the development of the Christian Church (image if there had never been any COuncils and Christianity remaine fractualized sects), and the unified Christian Church played probably the singular most influential role in the next 1000 years of European history. The importance of the Council can not be under-emphesised.

:::OK then. Although Christianity was not 'fractured sects' in 324. Had it been, the idea of a general council on a point of theology would have been impossible, in view of the wide other divergences. The heretics and schismatics were not invited to Nicaea (although a Novatianist bishop was present in the city, and subscribed to the Nicene definition when asked if he would, as you probably recall).

::*--[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 16:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

But as I said, much better.

:::Sounds as if we're getting there. Thanks for the comments. [[Roger Pearse]]

----

I can't follow all the above nested comments its getting confusing. I hope the recent edits address your concerns better. Please keep in mind this is a general purpose encyclopedia, its vital that there be a high level contextual summary of what the council of nicea was, and why its important in the scope of history, that anyone can understand, in simple language. I personally think its become much too complex for %99 of the people who will be reading this, anyone who really knows the debates behind the issues will not be looking to Wikipedia, this is not a masters of theology thesis. All of things are standard historiographical statements I can find more references it is mainstream standard analysis. The notion that I need to quote "ancient sources" is absolutely not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about. Its about presenting mainstream views on topics and these are the mainstream views. [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 22:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

== Passover/Easter ==

I'm getting tired of this SDA POV that's being added everywhere. Epiphanius wrote in Greek. You cannot distinguish "Easter" and "Passover" in Greek as they're both the same word. If one translator or another takes "Pascha" for "Passover", that's his choice. It doesn't change the meaning of the word though, which in this context can only refer to the Christian celebration that in English and German alone, out of the hundreds of languages in which Christ is worshipped, is called something like "Easter". (Although it ''is'' theologically correct: Easter is indeed the Christian Passover in the theology of most Christians.) In most languages it's still something similar to "Pascha". Saying "Passover, now called Easter" just confuses the issue for English speakers without adding new information on each repetition. I'll be fixing this when I find the time. Trying to disentangle the additions reflecting the same POV in other articles is taking up too much of my time. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 02:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

== Typo in Attendees ==

Irmgard added to the section "Attendees", including the following:

These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to

bring with him two presbyters and three diacons. was accompanied

by clerics, so the total number of attendees would have been above

1500.

It looks like something might be missing between "presbyters and three diacons" and "was accompanied by clerics" (but I don't know anything about this, so I can't fix it).

==Passover==

Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar

-The date of the crucifixion was 15th day of the 1st month according to the Bible's Hebrew Calendar since

Jesus kept the Passover(14th of the 1st month) in the Bible(Matthew 26:17~28, Mark 14:12~24, Luke 22:7~20) <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:69.233.59.46|69.233.59.46]] ([[User talk:69.233.59.46|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/69.233.59.46|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:That's assuming the Last Supper was a seder, as the Synoptics seem to say. There's good evidence that John has the correct chronology though. First, not even the Synoptics say anything about the Supper that makes it obviously a seder. None of the seder's regular features are mentioned. Second, if it was a seder we are being asked to believe that Jesus' trial took place on the first evening of the Passover when the entire Sanhedrin ought to have been feasting with their families instead. John puts it an evening earlier, which seems to make more sense. (And also incidently agrees with Mark 14:2, where it's decided ''not'' to put Jesus to death on the Passover.)

:Since the point here is to report that some Christians kept the Pascha on 14 Nisan, it makes sense to also report their reasons for so doing. ''They'' believed that the crucifixion took place on 14 Nisan, and this was the accepted traditional date. (As it still is in many churches.) It makes little sense to argue with them about it at this point. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 21:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus died on the cross on the 15th of the Nissan.

Jews did not crucify Jesus on the Passover(14th of the 1st month) since they were afraid of touching

the dead body.

They become unclean if they touch the dead body. The ceremonially unclean can't celebrate the Passover, which is important festival to the Jews, according to the Law of Moses(Numbers 7:6~8)

:The Jews didn't crucify Jesus, they turned him over to the Romans for crucifixion. The Gospels are clear on this. Nevertheless, because of the festival that was about to begin the Jewish authorities did not want the bodies hanging on the crosses just outside the walls, so they asked that the legs of the victims be broken to hasten their deaths. This is when the soldiers found that Jesus was already dead. See John 19:31-37. Note especially that in vs 31 the day is called "the preparation" and that the Sabbath was "a high day".

:Besides, the [[Passover]] only ''begins'' on the evening of 14 Nisan (15 Nisan by Jewish reckoning.) It ends a week later. Why would they scruple to carry out an execution on the first day of the festival and not the second? ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Council of Jerusalem wasn't the first Ecumenical Council?==

According to [[Acts of the Apostles]], the [[Council of Jerusalem]] was "WITH THE CONSENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH!" WHOLE CHURCH = Ecumenical. "Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’" (Acts15:22-29NRSV)

:That doesn't make it an Ecumenical Council. See my reply to your post on my talk page.

:You also don't seem to have understood what I meant by a cite. We can't just decide for ourselves here what constitutes an Ecumanical Council and what does not. That would be [[WP:NOR|original research]] and [[WP:V|unverifiable]]. You need to point to ''someone else'' who has called it an Ecumenical Council in some standard, reliable reference.

:I suppose you might say that you're simply listing the previous church council. Actually, there were a number of church councils between Jerusalem and Nicaea. So Jerusalem isn't the "previous" one in any event.

:Therefore, I'm re-reverting. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

::I have to agree to some extent. There is after all the "Seven Ecumenical Councils". However, what distinquishes these "Ecumenical Councils" is that they were called by Emperors, not that they necessarily represented the whole church. Were christians outside the Roman Empire represented at Nicaea? All of them? Nicaea was rejected by [[Nontrinitarianism]]. On the other hand, according to Acts, the [[Council of Jerusalem]] was agreed to by unanimous accord of the whole church at that time. The ''Apostolic Decree'' (Acts15:23-29) is part of the canonical Bible.[[User:209.78.20.114|209.78.20.114]] 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not User:216.196.129.221 .[[User:209.78.20.114|209.78.20.114]] 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)