Customer Reviews

History of the First Council of Nice: A World's Christian Convention A.D. 325 With a Life of Constantine

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The book goes into good and interesting details on the life of Constantine and to a greater extant on the history of the council of nice which made christianity a formal institution. I was VERY dissapointed when the book FAILED to deal in detail with the books/canons that were LEFT OUT (LOST) of the conventional bible. The book only lists those books/canons that were included, BUT fails to inform the reader as to those canons/books that were omitted (lost) or excluded from the conventional books adopted at the council. To be honest I baught the book for this (excluded/lost canons) part! Yet the book does well to inform the reader as to the main issue that was brought to the council, viz. the divinity of Jesus the Messiah (Christ). It also informs the reader of some of the agreements reached by the council regarding the church and its formalized religion: especially that Sunday was decided solely by Constatine to be our Sabbath, while the proper rest day is supposed to be Suturday..

Dudley takes his place along with the other historians (some very capable) who seem to criticise the Church for what took place at Nicea as the usurpation of power by Constantine. Obviously there is an element of this at Nicea, but to claim, among other things, that Christians were not already and from the beginning worship and celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday and that it took the emperor to settle it is a stretch. Argue if you want, but at least read a few other books that are not so biased. If you think that the Church became something radically different after Nicea, you have some learning to do. The Orthodox tradition only makes sense, however, if you believe that some theological opinions are more faithful to the apostolic tradition than others. In other words, "rainbow theology" is not how the early Church functioned. If she did, then the Lord's apostles were in extreme delusion, for they too discerned light from darkness in aspects that were not strictly moral (i.e. gnostic trends, although many false teachings lead to immorality).

I recommend Davis' "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils" and Allison's "The Cruelity of Heresy" to start with (and no, they are not "let's dump on the heretics" sort of books). Others include "God For Us" by LaCugna, "Jesus as God" by Harris, "Christology" and "THe Tripersonal God" by O'Collins.

If you're interested in the cannon of scripture, check out Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: It's Origin, Development, and Significance".

I picked this up when I had an argument with someone about who decided what books of the bibles should be in there. The Concil of Nicea under thew leadership of Constantine made the decision on what stayed and what would be taken out. Sadly the people who disagreed were banished or killed. Christianity.

This is a fascinating journey on what happened at the council of Nice; Since I am a reader who gets off track with questions while I am reading the information is so full so extent (See title Apprentice) that will take me 2-3 times to digest all of the information. But the book goes through in-depth explaining while the Nice information is being read. How the Arians vs 'Orthodox' Christians fought over the Substance or Con-substance of the Trinity, it viewed a very pleasant Constantine though I found that very hard to believe, one DVD I saw gave the impression that it was Constantine's way or the highway, the book showed how he relied heavily on the Bishops he trusted. Which gave me a sigh of relief on the foundation of the Trinity, and other theology that was discussed, though in my opinion even before reading this book was a bit bias on the side of Constantine's Bishops. What I really found interesting was the way the New Testament "kind of" came together. I did noticed it stopped at Martin Luther but there had to be other changes to come up with the listings we see in the New Testament KJV. But if you're ever interested about Constantine, how some of what we have of Church history was formed today, this is a good start. Excellent!

This book provides a fasinating account of the History of the First Council of Nice. The book also gives insight into why we celebrate holidays when we do, which modern-day calendar we use, as well as the mystery behind Christianity. A must read!

A little hard to follow but does at least give enough information to understand where the dogma of the trinity originated.

Dudley takes his place along with the other historians (some very capable) who seem to criticise the Church for what took place at Nicea as the usurpation of power by Constantine. Obviously there is an element of this at Nicea, but to claim, among other things, that Christians were not already and from the beginning worshipping and celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday and that it took the emperor to settle it is a stretch. Argue if you want, but at least read a few other books that are not so biased. If you think that the Church became something radically different after Nicea, you have some learning to do. The Orthodox tradition only makes sense, however, if you believe that some theological opinions are more faithful to the apostolic tradition than others. In other words, "rainbow theology" is not how the early Church functioned. If she did, then the Lord's apostles were in extreme delusion, for they too discerned light from darkness in aspects that were not strictly moral (i.e. gnostic trends, although many false teachings lead to immorality).

I recommend Davis' The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21)] and [[ASIN:0819215139 The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy to start with (and no, they are not "let's dump on the heretics" sort of books). Others includeJesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Harris, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ, Focus on Jesus: Essasy in Christology and Soteriology and The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity by O'Collins.

The definitive book on the subject of devotion to Jesus in the earliest centuries is currently Hurtado's massive,Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Mormons and JWs, our modern Arians, need to read it for some fact checking!). N.T. Wright's works are also VERY needed in this regard.

If you're interested in the canon of scripture, check out Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.

Please see my other reviews for similar themes.

I wanted to add a little note. For those people who read this book to prove that Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are just the result of political intrigue, but that their Protestant traditions are not, let me say this: This book is not for you. Why? Becasue the very thesis that underlies this book would undercut your own traditions from the Reformation era of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. Just because there were political pressures placed upon the Fathers of the council proves nothing either way about the legitimacy of the council's outcome. THis is just plain history, and a Protestant must also beleive this when reading the lives of the Reformers. They may have been right or wrong, but not just because they used or were used by the rulers of their times. OF course it may be the case, but God Himself uses the rulers of the world for His own will, does he not? It shouldn't surprise us that if He can speak out of Barlaam's donkey he can use Constantine to do His will even if Constantine's own motives were in part political (which no Christian scholars would deny, e.g. Jaroslav Pelikan and Wilken).

Furthermore, I would say to those who are reading this book to disprove Christianity in general that they should look elsewhere. THis book is historically weak in its scholarship (and its outdated thesis, although in our academic climate of publish or perish it has to reappear for the shock value of its thesis and suppossed outcomes).

Most "debunkers" of Christianity have long since discarded the attempt to disprove the Faith by criticizing the sources. They typically resort to saying that the early church was just wrong in its assumption about who Jesus of Nazareth was. Read the Jesus Seminar folks for this view, or the popular heretical "bishop" of the hertical Episcopal communion, Shelby Spong.

About nonbiased scholarship in this book: There is no such thing. So while I criticize the author for his weak treatment of the subject, I am not saying that it is weak becasue he has a chip on his shoulder. We all have views and opinions. My ONLY complaint with this work is that it is poorly done. Strong arguments can be chewed on and debated. But how do we debate with someone who distorts the historical account? Not on historical grounds only, but by attacking the methodology of the work. This work is methodologically silly. Look elsewhere.

Read N.T Wright and Larry Hurtado for much more balance and then you can decide for yourself (but don't be a one person ecumenical conference).