From Wikipedia: "The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it..."
It is not worth the time. You have so much to learn that a petty argument or debate is not going to help you. Like I said, re-read the Bible, and re-think your brainwashed ideas.
Of course, that is a claim that is totally rejected by 2 out of the 3 major religions based on the Bible.
It's ridiculous to argue whether there are scientists who are also religious. Regardless of your list, we know that there have been and are scientists who also have various beliefs in the supernatural. The important division is between science and religion - not between who is doing the science or who is doing the religion. If a true believer uses the rules of science exclusively, then the result will be science. The lasting work of those in your list has nothing to do with religion. Einstein did not mix and match religion and science.
I think it is useful to remember that Christianity (and other schisms of the Abrahamic faith) exist as a result of the different interpretations of the Bible. Noticing that Christians have the same opinion on one of the key factors in the schism that created Christianity in the first place seems a little lame to me.
And I would suggest that the different interpretations of the Bible are the results of the schisms, not the other way around as you suggest. Christians reinterpreted the OT to be consonant with their revelation. Same with the Muslims.
Nope! You desperately flailed because your superstitions are being whittled away by science. Fortunately the Constitution supports your right to believe in your superstitions but you don't have any right to impose them on others.
There is only one CORRECT interpretation It is a gift. Do they? Please provide some of those answers. Um...why do you think it's called "Christianity"? Not really. These things are easily understood if if you want to understand them. That's probably why they are still debated after two millennia. A one-page summary may be a laudable ideal, but I doubt it can exist.
Gotta love the hypocrisy of one of the most intolerant religions in the entire world accusing others of intolerance.
1. On the contrary, the execution accounts agree. They may include different perspectives, but there is no conflict. 2. There were plenty of eyewitnesses, and written accounts. Some were by actual witnesses, others were compiled from interviews with eyewitnesses.. much as is done today, with any event. 3. The historical accuracy is corroborated with abundant evidence.. much more than most other historical figures and events from that era. 4. What 'myriads of stories?' There is the historical, evidenced account, and there are distortions, lies, and corruptions. The existence of lies does not negate the truth.
The clue is that there is a deceptive force at work in this world, corrupting the truth and disseminating lies and distortions, to confuse and lead people away from the truth. I see that very clearly in threads like this. Caricatures and distortions are repeated loudly and often, while the lone voice of Truth is shouted over.
Much is said here. It seems you are addressing the age old theological debate of 'faith vs works'. Volumes have been written about this for millennia. I could not solve it in years of constant posting. But, my own inadequacies have never deterred me before, so I'll give it a shot. 'Faith' is the mechanism of salvation. 'Works' are the results. Faith is the thing that brings salvation, while works are the 'proof of the pudding. I can offer abundant scriptures that corroborate this view, if you wish. The passages you quoted fit this perspective nicely. There is no conflict between faith and works. They are different algorithms.. one is a causative process, the other is an effect.. a result of the causation.
A lot said here, too. My posting window is limited, as i do have a life.. as pathetic as it is.. that limits my replies. I'll try to cover your main points, as i see them. 1. There is no conflict in the synoptic gospels, nor even John. They relate the same events and words, albeit from different perspectives, which we would expect with any eyewitness account. 2. Revisionism and 'textual criticism' has declared the demise of Christianity for centuries, but scholarly research, archaeology, and other historical evidence have corroborated the nt manuscripts. 3. The only reason to doubt the authenticity of the nt manuscripts is prejudice or incredulity. They have more historical weight than most commonly accepted events. 4. The theories you suggest are speculative. There is nothing in the texts to compel such a conclusion, and they are contrary to all other written accounts that came early on. Clement, Irenaeus, polycarp, augustine.. none of the early writers saw any conflict in the accounts you interpret millennia later. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. These were very near to the events, and quoted extensively from ALL of the canon of nt scripture. The central teachings of Jesus have continued in an unbroken line, DESPITE the flood of lies, distortions, and propaganda that enemies of Christianity from every generation have hurled against it. Jesus was and is, the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. Lies and phony caricatures have been hurled at the Rock, but it remains, unscathed.
I would to some extent agree but argue that the Creeds came about in order for Constantine to impose his authority over the Bishops. Constantine viewed himself as God's representative on earth (possibly even a second Jesus?) and that in his eyes he was the arbiter of what was and was not orthodoxy. In Constantine's eye the Bishops were a means to an end in that he did not recognise their claims to greater authority than his concerning HIS subjects whether Christian or non-christian he was the emporer he was the pontifex maximus and he was the controller of the military as in his letter to Aelafius.. "I confess to your Lordship, since I am well aware that you also are a worshipper of the most High God, that I consider it by no means right that contentions and altercations of this kind should be hidden from me, by which, perchance, God may be moved not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human affairs, and may in His wrath provide otherwise than heretofore. In a later letter to Celsus in 315AD regarding the issue with the Donatists he reverts to the military emporer and imposes his authority as God's arbiter and insists that all christians worship in the fashion he determins, on pain of death... "When I come to Africa, I shall by reading a very plain verdict fully demonstrate to all...what sort of devotion should be paid to the greatest god and in what kind of cult he would appear to delight...those who incite and do things so that the greater god is not worshipped with the requisite devotion, I shall destroy and scatter. And as it is sufficiently apparent that no-one can obtain the blessing of martyrdom in a manner that is seen to be foreign and incompatible with the religious truth, those I find to be opposed to right and religion itself, and apprehend in violation of the due form of worship, then those without doudt I shall cause the due penalties of their madness and reckless obstinancy" ...in short Constantine insisted that all Christians worship in the fashion he would determind and also arrogated to himself the right to determine what was, and was not martyrdom. It is from these beginings and other instances that Constantine began to impose his will (possibly based on the views of his advisor Ossius of Cordoba) over the Bishops and ultimately his determination as to the path of what would become orthodoxy.
Yours, of course. These things have been debated by brilliant minds for two thousand years, without resolution... but they''re easy for you.
Much is made about Constantine and the council of Nicaea, but it was not as nefarious as the revisionists like to paint it. Christians met in secret, and there were only scattered manuscripts to provide orthodoxy and authority, and correction from false teaching, which was as rampant then, as now. Constantine LEGALIZED Christianity, and provided an open venue for the scattered leaders of the churches to meet, address some heresies, and craft a creed.. a confession of faith that summarized the central message of Christianity. They did that, and we have the Nicene Creed, which refuted the heresies that were threatening the integrity of the gospel. It was based in large part on the writings of Irenaeus, and i quoted both earlier in the thread for those who want to follow the unbroken line of orthodoxy. I can personally see the Hand of God, in using Constantine and the council of nicea to preserve the integrity of the Christian faith for future believers. But i see that same Hand throughout history.. Even though many people are blinded to the truth by the god of this world, history is indeed, 'His Story', and the darkness both hates and flees from the Light.
If i have presented an accurate summary of the basic beliefs of historical Christianity, i am satisfied. That was my only goal, here. Comparative philosophies, or 'Christians vs Atheists!' was not part of the plan, though defending and promoting individual worldviews is as old as Man.
I see the hand of self-preservation. Constantine co-opted God in order to have power over the Bishops who influenced their "flock" by arrogating himself divine christian powers he was able to assert his authority over those Christians by way of the Bishops. Prior to Constantine taking overall control of the empire there had been a long period of civil war, strife and disease in the empire and social and imperial cohesion was breaking down, constantine needed to make sure that both absolute military and civil power lay with him and since chrstians made up about 4-6 million at the time having control over them and their beliefs was crucial.
Ad hom is a poor substitute for reason. 1. Then don't make those arguments. I was replying to someone who tried to promote the phony narrative that, 'Christians have religion! Atheists have science!' 2. There is no conflict between philosophical beliefs and science. The only conflict comes from pseudo-scientists, who hijack terms for their ideological agenda. 3. "...we can see that we all dance to a mysterious tune, and the piper who plays this melody from an inscrutable distance—whatever name we give him—Creative Force, or God—escapes all book knowledge. Science is never finished because the human mind only uses a small portion of its capacity, and man’s exploration of his world is also limited." ~ Einstein Ad hom is a poor substitute for reason.
You may be right but I was under the impression that in one he has a long conversation with Pilate in another he has three words...? Bearing in mind that there would have been no need for him to have been put in front of Pilate I cannot see how there could be.... There is only reference to Jesus and that he was executed in Tacitus and Josephus?
That is your prerogative. Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying. ~Martin Luther I have a different perspective, and see the unfolding of history in an added spiritual dimension. Life is not a series of cosmic accidents, but is heading toward a climax.. an apex of historical significance, when a Restoration will occur.
I agree. To a certain extent he did he provided the Bishops with something they had never had before and what everybody in the Empire would have sold their souls for...Access!! They gained the ear of an Emporer! So would you accept that, by his decrees and the tacit acceptance of them by the Bishops, that Constantine's actions derived from him being God's representative on earth and arbitrating on God's required form of worship was correct and that God granted him authority over the Church?
I was under the impression that in Galatians was it...??...anyway one of Pauls letter that the restoration was imminent...is that wrong?
