Decoding Nicea

Constantine Changed Christianity and Christianity Changed the World

De: Paul Pavao

Narrado por: Alan Sisto

The Council of Nicea was not clerics in a dark and ornate hall. It was brawls in churchyards; it was emperors and governors fighting to save the empire; it was political intrigue as the governments of church and state blended into a volatile stew. It was the way a fringe group of peace-loving communal worshipers of a crucified Palestinian prophet conquered the Roman Empire.

©2014 Greatest Stories Ever Told (P)2017 Greatest Stories Ever Told

Thoroughly Enjoyed!

I have thoroughly enjoyed this book! I recommend it to those seeking to know more about early church history for sure! It was fairly easy to follow and eye opening as I am just in the beginnings of learning more about church history (by no means a scholar here, but understand the importance of learning about the early church as I continue walking with Jesus). Keeping my eye on this author for more for sure!

God is a lifetime study.

It isn't whether you should investigate the points of your faith but whether you're ready to do so. I am not in total agreement with all of the author's assertions which, I believe, adds to the read. Points we assume today were causes of profound schism for ardent believers of the past. Showing the jealousy and politics which fed the argument only bolster the need to truly investigate why you espouse the positions you do. Our faith is better because of this book. Bravo sir!

Pretty great

i was hoping for some testimony of the events of Nicea. i jeard there were a lot of back room deals and shady talks and tradd offs. im starting to assume there werent any or at least none that can be substantiated. There are elements of apologetics to christianity but i think its necessary. too many historians tend to misinterpret what happened and what Nicea was for. highly recommend if you want an an depth look at the before and after. i appreciate also the focus on the WHY of Nicea. it wasnt to deal as much on heresy but the language to use for the lay ppl to understand ans refute. THAT was impressive.

Intellectually Weak

Good performance and worthwhile knowledge. There was a muddying of acclaiming proof to opinion and wishing fiction is fact.

Absolutely love this book!

Absolutely love this book! Highly recommend to anyone wanting to understand why the church became puppets to the Roman Empire.

So interesting.

If you could sum up Decoding Nicea in three words, what would they be?

interesting, well researched, relevant

Who was your favorite character and why?

It's not really that kind of book. But I am really interested in the early church fathers who are depicted in it like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus.

What about Alan Sisto’s performance did you like?

He has a very calming, reassuring voice. It's easy to listen to him read on this topic.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

I was shocked at some of the depictions of so-called Christians. And I definitely shook my head in amazement at the childishness of these bishops.

Any additional comments?

I wish someone would make a TV show with these characters and stories. It was such an interesting story.

Excellent Historical Account

Paul does an excellent job sharing the factual account of the proceedings and results of the Nicean Council. I recommend anyone seeking a deeper understanding of these proceedings whether for or against, would do well to engage this work.

a must read for Christians

everything you always wanted to know about the start of Catholicism but were afraid to ask

Historical accuracy of terminology and linguistics are not correct

I’m only a few chapters into this book and probably will not continue to read this as it proves to be a waste of time and money. At the very beginning of the book the author states that the terminology was discussed in the council specifically in regards the term begotten. Begotten was not a word at that time period and did not appear in language until the old English language. The original Greek term would have been “monogenes” which is made up of the words "mono" (meaning one) and "genes" (meaning to come forth). The author uses the term homoousios” and states this is the original word, that isn’t correct. The terminology is problematic because it’s the difference between same or similar. It changes the context such as in a simile vs metaphor. He also references the apocrypha as not having been originally included. This is not true there were 14 additional books originally included at the council of Nicea which were even in the original King James Bible (which is the Bible the author uses) the apocrypha was not removed from the KJV until the 2nd revision and had not begun being removed until 1684 and were not completely removed from printing until 1885. There were 80 books or more at the Council determined and were not dropped to 66 until 1000+ years later. There still remains a difference in the books of the Bible for various denominations such as the messianic Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible, Ethiopian Bible, and Protestant Bible. If you are going to claim to be able to provide historical accuracy to determine truth, the author should actually reflect historical accuracy.

Who mixes fact with fiction?

To reciprocate: If you are looking to find the one true and valid review, you need look no further. The fact is the information one may seek is scattered throughout the highly opinionated ministry. Have you ever wanted to grab someone by the ears and ask them if they are hearing their own words? The heavy bias of this sermon gives the reader good reason to exercise intellectual self-defense, and discredits the potential validity of any message. It was like listenning to a used car salesman for too many hours, so how much is bs?