1,186 Reasons Christianity Is Wrong

Started by stromboli, May 20, 2016, 10:36:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Randy Carson

Quote from: marom1963 on May 21, 2016, 09:48:28 PM
Raspberries. The history is there to support my assertion. Constantine established a single faith at the Council of Nicea. He demanded and got an orthodoxy. Before that you had a pack of squabbling churches. Those who did not conform to Constantine's new orthodoxy were ruthlessly exterminated. The "pope" did not yet exist and would not exist until after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476. He was merely the Bishop of Rome and subservient to the emperor - as the patriarch in the east would remain until 1453 when the Eastern Roman Empire breathed its last. It was Gregory the Great who claimed and established an hegemony for the Bishop of Rome. He got it because Rome still had a cachet of glamor among the barbarian kings that then ruled in the west. That was how the papacy was established. It had little to do w/anything that Jesus said or did. The emperor in the east and the patriarch did not acknowledge the pope - and would not for 1400 years. No one outside of the Roman Catholic Church does!

Nope.

I have LOTS of quotes from the Early Church Fathers pre-Constantine, but I will give you these two:

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago â€" in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part â€" and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him â€" that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).


Note what they are saying. The Catholic Church existed before Constantine and it distinguished itself from heretics who taught false doctrines. IOW, long before Constantine, the Catholic Church had established what was and was not orthodox doctrine. And the heretics were "expelled". Expelled from what? A Church that would not come into existence for another hundred years? And to whom did Marcian repent and submit if not the leaders of the Catholic Church to which he sought reconciliation?
Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

marom1963

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 09:57:34 PM
Nope.

I have LOTS of quotes from the Early Church Fathers pre-Constantine, but I will give you these two:

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago â€" in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part â€" and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him â€" that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).


Note what they are saying. The Catholic Church existed before Constantine and it distinguished itself from heretics who taught false doctrines. IOW, long before Constantine, the Catholic Church had established what was and was not orthodox doctrine. And the heretics were "expelled". Expelled from what? A Church that would not come into existence for another hundred years? And to whom did Marcian repent and submit if not the leaders of the Catholic Church to which he sought reconciliation?
And if Constantine had not picked what you are calling the Catholic Church from amongst the others at the Council of Nicea, it would have been eradicated like the others and some other church would be making the same claims today. Constantine established your church as a state religion that could survive and flourish, like it or not. He could have squashed it like a bug, if he wanted. As it was, he got rid of dozens of competitors ... Actually, he established the prototype of your church, not really your church. Gregory the Great created the Roman Catholic Church.
OMNIA DEPENDET ...

Randy Carson

#17
Here is the first "reason":

Quote(1) Jesus Seminar

The Jesus Seminar was a collaborative effort of approximately 200 professionally-trained specialists in the field of religion tasked with the goal to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus.  Membership was limited to scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide and to published authors who were recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only).  The task force convened on and off from 1985 to 2006.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/

The principal finding was that the quotes and deeds of Jesus as written in the Gospels are mostly mythical.  In fact, only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic.  The scholars used cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrowing in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and used textural analysis along with anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence.

Other findings of the group included:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

His mother’s name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.

Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.

Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.

He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.

Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.

He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

The empty tomb is a fiction â€" Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.

Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The significance of this effort is that it is the first time that Jesus’s life has been objectively analyzed by a team of highly qualified reviewers.  As such, it remains the best effort to date to ascertain the true historical Jesus, stripped of the myths that have been attached to him over the centuries.  Although many religious leaders objected to the findings, it must be acknowledged that the level of effort, the range of resources used, and the qualifications of the reviewers lend much weight to their conclusions.

Are you aware that the site also has a page for responses to or refutations of these "reasons": http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=1299

IOW, the work that you are asking me to do is already underway and available at the very site you are crowing about! Moreover, there are thousands (if not millions) of books, online articles and YouTube videos available for anyone interested in hearing the believers' response to these "reasons". Christians have been dealing with objections like these for 2,000 years...do you honestly think we cannot answer them?

This website is just the latest compilation produced by someone who is clearly ignorant of how Christians have responded in the past...another "atheist-come-lately" who thinks he has found something new.

By the way, atheists Sam Harris and Bill Mahr have discredited at least one of the Jesus Seminar's "participants". See that in red below.

Here is Gary Shandle's rebuttal of that first "reason":

1. The Jesus Seminar

I find it interesting that Mr. Runyan starts with the Jesus Seminar, a self-promoting,  self-proclaimed group of scholars. I welcome this first point for two reasons. First, if one were to form an argument against christianity, supporting scholars are the first place to start. Second, this is the first time that I am taking a deeper, critical look at the Jesus Seminar.

In order to look at their work critically, we must investigate a few things. First, we need to investigate the supposed group of scholars themselves. Second, we need to investigate their methods. Third, we need to put into context what they are saying.

The Jesus Seminar became popular through mainstream media on shows such as the ABC News program, “The Search for Jesus” hosted by news anchor Peter Jennings. The late Dr. Robert W. Funk founded the Jesus Seminar in 1985. He chose 30 scholars to start. They currently boast of more than 200 critical scholars.

The Jesus Seminar speaks as if it is part of the mainstream in scholarship. However, when one compares their membership to the more-than-5000 full-time scholars of The Society of Biblical Literature (1) or to the American Academy of Religion (2), an organization of 9000 scholars, the Jesus Seminar is but a speck of dust in the scholarly world.

The Jesus Seminar represents less than 1% of Bible scholars. When one looks more closely at their supposed 200 members, a few interesting things show up.

First, in their best selling book, “The Five Gospels”, only 74 scholars took part in this project. This book records all the conclusions of the research done by the Jesus Seminar. The other 126 supposed scholars either just teach the conclusions at public seminars, or are simply on their mailing list.

Second, when one looks critically at the meager 74 scholars that took part in the research, he or she would discover that only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. Another 20 have published a few articles and are names recognizable to most New Testament scholars. The remaining 40 are unknowns. They include recent graduates or students of an original charter member, a movie producer, and teachers.

As Mr. Runyan noted, membership is open to scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide or published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only). However, of the 200 supposed scholars, only 34 meet these requirements. The following are just a few examples:

Paul Verhoeven is a film director who made such classics as Robocop, Basic Instinct and Showgirls. He has no degree in biblical studies. He graduated with a degree in mathematics and physics from the University of Leiden. He has no published work related to the Bible before 2010. He is clearly no scholar and meets none of the requirements.

James Breech is a financial advisor, not a scholar. He had no published work prior to the Jesus Seminar.

William E. Arnal joined the Jesus Seminar fresh out of college. He carried out his doctoral work at the University of Toronto, under the direction of John Kloppenborg, one of the original charter members. Without any true experiece, he is merely a follower, not a leader.

Martin L. Appelt is a complete unknown. A google search only shows, “Juvenile Court Officer 4 for the Judicial Department in Iowa.” Not sure if this is the same person. Either way, his credentials cannot be confirmed. He is clearly not a leading critical scholar.

Karen Armstrong has no degree in religious studies. She was a nun who left the convent. She had no published work until 1993, the same year as the best selling book of the Jesus Seminar was produced.

Mainstream scholars (real, professionally trained critical scholars) have criticized her work since her beginnings. Even atheists such as Sam Harris and Bill Mahr have criricized her. One article (3) states the following:

QuoteThe word "scholar" is best applied to people who devote themselves to study of focused material, and achieve certification from others who have studied and gained expertise in that same material.  Scholars perform original research.  Scholars produce original, peer-reviewed publications.  Scholars are circumspect about the public statements they make on which they claim authority.  A scholar might say, "My research has been on medieval knighthood; therefore, I am not qualified to speak about soldiers in the Roman Empire." Armstrong does not meet any of these criteria of scholarship.  Armstrong was, first, a nun.  She left the convent and attempted to embark on an academic career.  She tried to write a dissertation about the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson.  Her dissertation was rejected.  She did not receive her desired degree.  She left the university.

Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages.  She does not publish with university presses.  Armstrong is a popularizer, that is, she reads original research by real scholars, digests it, and presents her digested version to the public.  There's nothing inherently wrong with being a popularizer...The problem with Armstrong is her obvious bias.  Armstrong has been widely criticized for cherry picking facts...None of these statements stand up to serious scrutiny.

It soon becomes clear why the Jesus Seminar is, “by special invitation only.” This is not a group of professionally trained critical scholars. This is one scholar, Dr. Robert W. Funk, with an agenda. He found less than 15 other scholars who would agree, by large, with his thinking. Then they recruited some unknowns who would also agree and called them scholars.

Mr. Runyan states that the Jesus Seminar was, “tasked with the goal to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus.” However, Robert Funk’s agenda, and true mission statement, becomes clear long before any research took place.

On March 21-24, 1985, the Jesus Seminar held its first meeting in Berkeley, California. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the mission of the Jesus Seminar, and how their reserch would work. Funk made his mission obvious. During the opening remarks he said, “What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story.” (4)

The mission was clearly not, “to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus” as Mr. Runyan stated. Instead, the Jesus Seminar was tasked with creating a new Jesus and re-writing the gospels. They wanted a Jesus that fit in better with the current culture.

The Jesus Seminar completely misses it:

“You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News.” â€" Galatians 1:7-8

“You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.” â€" 2 Corinthians 11:4

Funk continues, “The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies. And we need a fiction that we recognize to be fictive.”

It is obvious that the conclusions about Jesus would be radically different than the Bible long before research took place. Dr. Funk already knew the conclusions he wanted, recruited people to give it authority, and used the media to drive it down the throats of anyone who would believe his nonsense.

The Jesus Seminar quickly loses credibility when examined, yet when one investigates their methods, it gets even worse. One thing that stands out in their book,”The Five Gospels” is the, “rules of evidence.”

Scholars should have rules which guide them to evaluate evidence carefully and objectively. However, the rules the Jesus Seminar came up with are quite peculiar. Here are four examples taken from pages 22-23, 32:

“Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus.”

“The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus.”

“Jesus rarely makes pronouncements or speaks about himself in the first person.”

“Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.”

It is quite clear that these are not rules. These are conclusions. The “rules of evidence” tell us what Jesus said, or did not say, before the research even started. This is the extreme bias that repeatedly shows up in the work of the Jesus Seminar. Yet, the Jesus Seminar’s own definition of a critical scholar states:

“critical scholarship in the biblical field does not permit special pleading on the basis of theological doctrine or other bias.” (5)

The Bible says Jesus claimed to be the messiah. One of the Jesus Seminar’s “rules of evidence” is that he did not. This is extreme theological bias. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar do not even qualify as critical scholars based on their own definition of a critical scholar!

Another thing that stands out is their voting method. The Jesus Seminar used colored beads to determine what Jesus said:

Red: Jesus said it
Pink: He might have said something similar
Grey: He didn’t say it, but it may include His ideas
Black: Definately didn’t say it.

The real problem was not with the bead voting system. The problem was how the beads were weighted. Black beads held the most weight, followed by grey, then pink, and finally red. This allowed the results to be predetermined because a few black beads could show that Jesus did not say it even though the majority of scholars agreed that He did say it.

For example, on page 232 of “The Five Gospels”, 58% voted red or pink for the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-31. Yet, it is colored grey. While the majority agreed that Jesus either said it, or something like it, the final conclusion is that He did not say it.
Furthermore, in the opening remarks of the first meeting, Dr. Funk stated, “we are committed to public accountability.” However, the Jesus Seminar never holds up to this. The voting beads were dropped secretly into boxes. No one could be held accountable for his or her vote. And if the voting system was not bad enough, the documents they use are highly unreliable.

The Jesus Seminar focuses a lot of attention on the “Q” document. There is not even one copy of this document in existence. No one knows if it even existed. It is a hypothetical document based on the same passages in Matthew & Luke.

The “M” and “L” documents are also hypothetical documents based on information exclusive to Matthew and Luke. Once again, no one knows if they even existed.

The “Gospel of Thomas” is the main source for the Jesus Seminar. It is a late document written between 150-200 A.D. It adds no new information about Jesus that is not already included in at least one of the four gospels. It is not a historical document and features no narrative. It is simply a document showing that Jesus lived and that His sayings were still being talked about 120-170 years after His death.

Some atheists buy right into the findings of the Jesus Seminar without any research or critical thinking, assuming that they have found another argument against christianity. But when one is searching for the truth, he or she will discover a group of unqualified self-proclaimed scholars with an agenda to rewrite the gospel.

Finally, we must understand what the Jesus Seminar is saying with their results. Dr. John Dominic Crossan was co-chair of the Jesus Seminar for its first decade. In a debate against Dr. James White in 2005 (6), Dr. Crossan clearly explains his position. He accepts the Bible as authentic.

Where Dr. Crossan differs, is that he does not believe the apostles wrote what Jesus said word-for-word. He believes the apostles used parables to explain the teachings of Jesus much the same as Jesus used parables to teach His followers. He stated that just because the words written are not the exact words of Jesus does not mean the teachings are not authentic. He argues that the teachings are in fact authentic.

In conclusion, the Jesus Seminar is a group of mostly unqualified self-proclaimed scholars with an agenda to rewrite the gospel. They use a flawed voting system and unreliable documents to produce their desired results even when the majority vote in favor. They popularize their conclusions through the use of news and media, passing them off as if they are the consensus of most scholars.

While the Jesus Seminar does still hold some seminars, they have mostly vanished from public view. The Jesus Seminar was such a failure that some of its members formed a new group called the Jesus Project. Although the Jesus Project never took off, it proves the failure of the Jesus Seminar.

Of the 95 Fellows listed on the Westar website, I have found only five that list the Jesus Seminar in their credentials. The others recognize that the horrible scholarship is an embarrisment to their careers. (7, 8, 11) Those that have passed on do not even list it in their obituaries. (9, 10, 11)

The Jesus Seminar is not a very good argument to show that christianity is false. In fact, it shows the opposite. The evidence for the christian scriptures is so strong that the only way they could make it work is to hide behind the media, passing their results off as mainstream scholarship.

When one has to go the lengths that the Jesus Seminar took just to show another Jesus, it adds to the credibility of the scriptures. The Jesus Seminar proves the reliability of the christian scriptures.

1. http://www.sbl-site.org/SBLDashboard.aspx

2. https://www.aarweb.org/about

3. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/karen_armstrong_is_wrong_wrong_wrong_on_bill_maher.html

4. http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/jesus-seminar-opening-remarks/

5. http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/what-is-a-critical-scholar/

6. https://youtu.be/BIX7eqTllEc

7. Harold W. Attridge, one of the 14 scholars that is recognized. Has an impressive list of credentials, but leaves out the Jesus Seminar. â€" http://divinity.yale.edu/attridge

8. Richard A. Edwards â€" http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/staff/edwards/

9. William A. Beardslee obituary â€" One of the 14 recognized scholars and an original charter member. â€" http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/national/09BEAR.html

10. Richard L. Arthur obituary â€" http://www.mcnallywatson.com/home/index.cfm?action=mobile:obituaries.view&id=1990753&FH_ID=12030

11. R.G. Hammerton-Kelly has quite an impressive list of credentials. The Jesus Seminar is not listed in his bio http://www.hamerton-kelly.com/ or in his obituary. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/july/hamerton-kelly-obit-071813.html
Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

Randy Carson

Quote from: marom1963 on May 21, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
And if Constantine had not picked what you are calling the Catholic Church from amongst the others at the Council of Nicea, it would have been eradicated like the others and some other church would be making the same claims today.

By whom?

The Catholic Church had already flourished under the worst persecution the Romans could mete out.

QuoteConstantine established your church as a state religion that could survive and flourish, like it or not. He could have squashed it like a bug, if he wanted. As it was, he got rid of dozens of competitors ... Actually, he established the prototype of your church, not really your church. Gregory the Great created the Roman Catholic Church.

Is that what scholars believe? Did no other emperors of Rome attempt (unsuccessfully) to crush both the Christians and the Jews?

There is one honest Protestant scholar who reluctantly admits the truth: the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”. 

Quote"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

IOW, by the latter part of the second century "at latest", the believers who followed Jesus were calling themselves the Catholic Church.

Waaaaay before Constantine.

Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

stromboli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#Use_by_early_Christians



The Church gradually spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, gaining major establishments in cities such as Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa.[15][16][17] It also became a widely persecuted religion. It was condemned by the Jewish authorities as a heresy (see also Rejection of Jesus). The Roman authorities persecuted it because, like Judaism, its monotheistic teachings were fundamentally foreign to the polytheistic traditions of the ancient world and a challenge to the imperial cult.[18] The Church grew rapidly until finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I in the 4th century as the state church of the Roman Empire.

Nobody is disputing the existence of Christianity. It wasn't Catholicism and the state church until the 4th century. Regardless of the growth of the church from its origins, you still can't prove the divinity of Jesus, still can't prove it isn't a myth. Keep reading.

Randy Carson

Quote from: stromboli on May 22, 2016, 09:13:06 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#Use_by_early_Christians



The Church gradually spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, gaining major establishments in cities such as Jerusalem, Antioch, and Edessa.[15][16][17] It also became a widely persecuted religion. It was condemned by the Jewish authorities as a heresy (see also Rejection of Jesus). The Roman authorities persecuted it because, like Judaism, its monotheistic teachings were fundamentally foreign to the polytheistic traditions of the ancient world and a challenge to the imperial cult.[18] The Church grew rapidly until finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I in the 4th century as the state church of the Roman Empire.

Nobody is disputing the existence of Christianity. It wasn't Catholicism and the state church until the 4th century. Regardless of the growth of the church from its origins, you still can't prove the divinity of Jesus, still can't prove it isn't a myth. Keep reading.

What was the name of the Church which existed prior to the Edict of Milan in AD 313? What do early writings of that Church reveal?

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

QuoteYou must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” â€" terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.
Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

Baruch

A lot of the great men of history were momma's boys ;-)  Consider Alexander.

Plus ... the orthodoxy initially established at Nicea ... was Arianism.  The anti-Arians had another 175 years before they overcame that.  And neither Arianism nor anti-Arianism existed prior to the early 4th century.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jack89

Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2016, 12:15:18 PM
A lot of the great men of history were momma's boys ;-)  Consider Alexander.

Plus ... the orthodoxy initially established at Nicea ... was Arianism.  The anti-Arians had another 175 years before they overcame that.  And neither Arianism nor anti-Arianism existed prior to the early 4th century.
I thought the Council of Nicaea refuted Arius and established the co-eternal nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The Nicene Creed came from it and that's why we have the "consubstantial with the Father" line. 

hrdlr110

Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians”

Yes, much like today, those that are followers/supporters of trump are called trumpetteres!
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

Baruch

Quote from: Jack89 on May 22, 2016, 06:57:45 PM
I thought the Council of Nicaea refuted Arius and established the co-eternal nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The Nicene Creed came from it and that's why we have the "consubstantial with the Father" line.

Post facto spin doctoring by the eventual winners ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Constantine himself was flexible, but punishing the primary advocate of the eventual orthodoxy, Athanasius, two subsequent emperors were Arians ... among the barbarian kings it survived until 671 CE ... thus its last legal support.  But the predominant turning point was the conversion of King Clovis of the Franks to orthodoxy at the time of his conversion to Christianity ... in 498 CE.  Of course forms of Arianism came back, with the Protestant Reformation.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.