- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Anonymous.
May 28, 2020 at 12:06 pm #14420AnonymousInactive
There are some points that Kurt makes in this article that appear to be accurate according to Gonzalez. He was right in saying that there was division at the time regarding the person of Christ, with Arius and Alexander representing the opposing sides. This was known as the Arian controversies. As Kurt and Gonzalez both point out, Constantine called the Bishops to a council in Nicea to discuss matters of the church, particularly the Arianism controversy, although all of the details that Kurt highlights do not seem to be accurate. The majority of the council, including Constantine favoured the side of Alexander, and thus the Nicene Creed was officially formed. Kurt says that those who did not agree were either banished or slaughtered. I don’t recall Gonzalez saying anything about killings over this from what I read, but he does point out that those who did not believe were removed from the church, and further exiled by Constantine’s command as a way to protect the church from heresy and further controversies. Kurt is correct in saying that the Creed does not contain Biblical language, but he misses the point as to why the Council came to the decision to write it this way.May 28, 2020 at 5:50 pm #14422AnonymousInactive
I would like to know where Kurt got his sources from because a lot of the time what he says and what Gonzalez says, do not line up. Some things may be left up to the reader reading between the lines of what the historians are saying and putting your own biases into them, but the reader cannot simply add things to history that did not actually happen. If there was slaughtering happening after the Nicene council met and Constantine banished the bishops, I would think that even modern Christian historians would include it in their accounts since even the basis of Christianity is not flattering.May 31, 2020 at 10:56 am #14429AnonymousInactive
It is so encouraging to see how you have made connections between what you have have been learning and reading. Upon reading the article a second time it is great that you were able to find points that he made correctly. Personally I find it difficult when something is partially right because once you have a half truth it is hard to decipher which parts are full truth. You have done a good job addressing both the parts that Kurt got right and also the parts that he missed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.