Emperor Constantine, the Catholic Church and the Council of Nicaea
There is a lot of ballast and conspiracy theories about Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea on the Internet. In this article, however, we will look at this issue with a very serious, objective academic approach.
The Church as an Instrument of Political Power and the Council of Nicaea
Almost all historians, who are not Catholic religious fanatics themselves, are of the opinion that the Catholic Church has never been anything but an instrument of political power. The first to think of using a small, insignificant Jewish sect for political purposes was Emperor Constantine, or Theodosius I. Academic facts say that in 325 there were many more Gnostics, that is , true followers of Christ, than the strange Jewish offshoot of Christianity, which later became the Catholic Church.
More about Gnostics here: Gnosticism, gnosis. Basic information and facts. The real teaching of Christ and true Christianity https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/sk/gnosticizmus-definicia-a-zakladne-fakty
The Council of Nicaea dealt with the dispute with the Arians, who were essentially Jews who recognized Jesus only as a prophet, not as God. It's strange why Constantine didn't side with the Arians, because Constantine wasn't concerned with "truth" or the good of Christians. He didn't care which sect he supported. The only thing Constantine pursued was to effectively use it to strengthen his political power. The sect (more precisely, a group of sects) that could be better used for several reasons to strengthen political power was something similar to what we currently call "Christianity", which is why Constantine decided to support this particular group of sects. Few people realize that if Emperor Constantine (or Emperor Theodosius ) had supported another type of Christian sect, in this case the Arians, the current form of Christian faith would not exist at all, and instead of the current 2 billion Christians, 2 billion Christians would have Arian faith. Such a large and significant demographic matter was then decided by only one small decision of the Roman emperor. If the emperor had not interfered in religious matters at all, the Jewish forms of followers of Christ (such as current Christianity or Arians) would have spontaneously disappeared, and only one form of followers of Christ would have remained: the Gnostics.
The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine. Emperor Constantine also presided over this council (in other words, he was in charge). It was typical for emperors to be actively involved in religious matters: for example, which Roman or Greek gods pagan priests should worship in temples. After a change of emperor, it was necessary to worship other gods more – such things happened often – it is a real historical fact. It logically follows that Emperor Constantine, who, by the way, was not even a Christian, had an active motivation to interfere in Christian religious matters.
While searching for information about the Council of Nicaea, I also came across the website of Jehovah's Witnesses. I was unable to verify whether they quote correctly from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but in any case, even Christian Protestant theologians themselves hold the view, and many historical and factual opinions suggest, that the pagan Constantine interfered quite significantly in the council for Christians. Of course, I in no way want to label the information from Jehovah's Witnesses in this article as credible, but it is worth mentioning:
In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine summoned all the bishops to Nicaea. His goal was to resolve a problem that had been the subject of much discussion: the relationship between God and his Son.
At the Council of Nicaea, "Constantine himself presided," states Encyclopædia Britannica , "actively directing the proceedings and personally proposing… the crucial formulation expressing Christ's relationship to God in the creed that emerged from the council, that he is 'of one substance with the Father'… The bishops, intimidated by the emperor, with the exception of two, signed the creed, many of them largely against their own convictions."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r38/lp-v/1200274107#h=5
The most important thing from the entire Council of Nicaea was the Nicene Creed.
However, I noticed a very controversial thing. The Greek and Latin translation of the Nicene Creed differs in a very serious matter: in the most important word of the entire creed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion
While the term "homoousion" is quite clear in the Greek language, meaning the Father and the Son have the same essence, in the Latin version, Emperor Constantine pushed through the more pagan-sounding word "consubstantiálem," which translates to common essence.
Here, it is necessary to understand the context: according to Greek and Roman mythology, the gods had their children and grandchildren. In 325, the vast majority of pagans could interpret the term "consubstantiālem" as the relationship of father and son in the pagan mythology of the gods. And the pagan emperor Constantine quite liked it. It is interesting that Christian theologians are very fond of avoiding the controversial Latin term "consubstantiālem" and prefer to use the Greek term "homoousion".
Catholics and Protestants recognize the Nicene Creed, but they do not realize that the creed has many pagan elements.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consubstantialem
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consubstantial
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-#Latin
I was unable to determine in which language the Nicene Creed is more original. However, it is clear that the most important person at the council, Emperor Constantine, signed the Latin version of the creed at the council, as Greek was not such a close language to him.
The Pope did not attend the Council.
Another interesting fact is that the Pope was not present at the Council of Nicaea, which is a scandal from the perspective of Catholic theology. Did Emperor Constantine forbid him to attend? On the other hand, it must be said that the "Pope" had absolutely minimal influence in the past – he was just an ordinary bishop of the city of Rome. To this day, in the Catholic Church, the Pope is metaphorically referred to as the Bishop of Rome, but in the past, this was not a metaphor but was literally true.
The pagan element of the generation of gods in the Nicene Creed. … They concealed the pagan elements: a bad translation of the Nicene Creed into Slovak and Czech.
Nowhere in the Bible is it written that Jesus the Son is begotten of the Father, but in the Nicene Creed it is. But why? What could be the logical justification for this?
According to Greek and Roman mythology, the gods had wives, children, and grandchildren. Since Constantine still sympathized with pagan philosophy, he tried to transfer pagan philosophy into Christianity – after all, it would be easier for pagans to convert to Christianity. Constantine thus imposed a pagan element in the Nicene Creed, that the Son (Jesus) was begotten by God the Father. To be begotten by sexual intercourse – thus it smacks of pagan Greco-Roman mythology of the begetting of gods. The Slovak and Czech translations (and perhaps translations in many other languages) have an incorrect translation: "zrodený", i.e. born of the Father ("zrodený" is a synonym for "narodený"). The English translation of the word "génitum" is correct: "begotten".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genitus#Latin
The First Council of Constantinople or the First Council of Constantinople: Jesus as not fully God
In 380, Christianity was enacted as the mandatory religion in Rome by the bloodiest Roman Emperor, Theodosius I, and pagans unwilling to convert to Christianity were brutally executed and liquidated. A civil war began in the Roman Empire.
Emperor Theodosius I was the first emperor to come up with the perfect idea that Christianity could be used as a tool of political power. Despite the fact that this emperor was officially a Christian, he still did not give up his pagan thinking. In the Council of Constantinople, this emperor pushed through another pagan element.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, enacted at the Council of Constantinople, contains another pagan controversy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Niceno.E2.80.93Constantinopolitan_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
This part is particularly controversial.
… .. the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.
The meaning of the word "saeculum" as age is only in third place – it is a deliberately misleading translation. The correct translation of the Latin word "saeculum" is generation . Jesus was conceived before all generations, so he is not a full-fledged infinite god who has existed forever. Again, this element smacks of pagan mythology about the conception and birth of gods.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saeculum
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saeculum
A bold theory: Did Christians really believe in one God? Or did they believe in multiple gods?
The Church as an Instrument of Political Power – Historical Development after Emperor Constantine and Theodosius
It is clear that Emperor Theodosius had more power over the church than the Roman Bishop himself (later called the Pope). Several emperors after Theodosius I apparently had more power over the church than the "Pope" himself (or rather the Roman Bishop), because the desire for power was great and the church then had more power than the state. Later, more political power began to pass to the Pope, and the political importance of the emperor weakened and later disappeared. Later, the Popes managed to remove the institution of the emperor completely, and the Pope took all political power upon himself.
Primacy / primacy of the Roman bishop
This topic is a bit of a digression from the main topic, but it is something interesting. Catholics manipulatively interpret a certain part of the Bible, where Peter is referred to as the "head" of the church. "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it" (Mt 16:18). But nowhere in the Bible does it say that the subsequent Roman bishops should have the same title and the same importance as Peter.
Another part of the Bible says that Jesus said that his successor was James (I don't have time to look it up, you can look it up).
The Inquisition in the Catholic Church continues to this day. To this day, the Catholic Church despises, scorns, and mocks science, specifically the scientific discipline of history. The Catholic Church still insists that the Bishop of Rome was the Pope, that is, the supreme head of all Christianity and the church from time immemorial. However, every independent, i.e., non-religious academic historian will tell you that the institution of the Pope as a person with influence over the entire Catholic Church only came into being when the institution of the Roman Emperor ceased to exist and all power passed to the Pope, which certainly was not earlier than the 7th or 8th century. The emergence of the institution of the Pope as the head of the entire Catholic Church had nothing to do with Saint Peter or Christianity; rather, it was all about political power. This real historical fact is still strongly denied at an official level in the Catholic Church. Church history is also taught in priestly seminaries (a seminary is a building where future priests study to become priests), but it is taught in a deliberately manipulative way. Catholic priests also teach history in Catholic seminaries. In the Catholic Church, it is always very strongly emphasized that the Pope is the direct successor of Saint Peter.
In conclusion,
Serious historical consequences.
It is important to realize a very serious thing: that nothing like Christianity would exist today if the Roman Emperor Theodosius had not decided to impose Christianity on the population under the threat of death, and this purely for the purpose of using some strange sect for political power.
The Inquisition in the Catholic Church still exists today.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Inquisition has not disappeared from the Catholic Church even today. In the Catholic Church, it is still strictly forbidden to discuss topics that are discussed quite normally on neutral academic ground ( e.g., some topics mentioned in this article). Future priests – theology students in priestly seminaries will never learn the truth, everything is censored, and the Catholic Church is always praised only in the best light. Real factual and historical facts confirm that the teaching of Jesus Christ was nothing like what we call Christianity today, but so-called Gnosticism. In priestly seminaries, it is only briefly mentioned that there were once some small Gnostic sects, and that's it, we move on. The truth is exactly the opposite, there were incomparably more Gnostic followers of Christ, the number of Gnostics had a much greater demographic significance, and the small Jewish sects that are called "Christianity" today were very few in number.
The Church does not recognize history as a science – the Inquisition still exists – the Church denies real facts. Most Catholic priests still deny history.