No one shows any mercy here, dqualk. For instance, Ryft and I are friends, but he still dug into me when he felt I was in error on your thread. Don't you think he doesn't cross me in private either. Other members on here have sniped at me if I express an opinion on, say, genetically modified crops. It is up to me to defend myself, to demonstrate that I can logically and clearly argue my points and also state my sources. In case you haven't noticed, DP and Ryft have been carrying on multiple arguments in which they point out mistakes or fallacies - every little one.

That is the nature of a discussion forum, sweet cheeks, and if you're not strong enough to take your lumps I suggest you go somewhere where people agree with you and won't call you out. Part of "growing up" is learning to let shit roll off your back. You believe what you believe, and our lack of belief or difference of opinion isn't going to change that, yes? So Min stating that Constantine and his cronies were thugs is his interpretation based on what he's studied of the past and you can agree or disagree and tell him why, or you can continue to scream and point fingers and say he's only being insulting.

You also completely miss the sarcasm. History and life are never as simple as "Constantine & his thugs". The humor lies in the reduction. And now I've killed it because things like that shouldn't have to be explained.

You're completely missing the point - of course you've stated who created Christianity. We're still not convinced and the object of a discussion forum is to continue refining your arguments and presenting evidence - NEW evidence. With your allegedly vast knowledge of primary sources and religious texts, I'm sure you'll have no problem quoting and interpreting and even re-stating it so that those who aren't familiar with Catholic concepts can understand (you realize the ability to explain things effectively to laymen is particularly valued). You've done none of those things. You've backed yourself into a corner on many issues, repeated yourself unnecessarily without bringing any new information to the table, and been deliberately insulting yourself when you had no reason to be.

Listen misdsummer, I've not shrunk from one person. Nor am I offended. I don't mind people correcting me. However, I do point out that insulting for insultings sake is lame. If they continue to do it they hurt themselves, not me. Sure I'm not here to change anyone's belief, I'm here to just talk about the issues and allow people to make their own decisions. I think it can be proven that Theism is a legitimate intellectual system, and I have meant to express that.

I know min is just saying stuff to offend people. He doesn't really believe Constanting and his thugs created Christianity, and if he does then he is just ignorant on the topic of Christian history. For this reason, I know he was just being insulting, that is, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he has read at least a little about Chrisitan history.

No I did not miss the saracasm, I pointed it out. I was saying and continue to say that his sarcasm is old, and its annoying when someone asks a legitimate question like, who created Christianity, and someone replies with utter nonsense, to be sarcastic.

Like I've said if someone wants to legitimately disagree, and not sarcastically disagree, then I will present evidence. I only repeat myself when someon repeats a same old arguement and I address them for their sake. I'm not mad at anyone, I'm not necessarily looking for someone to argue with.

[shaking head]

And if you're deliberately misspelling my username, thank you - it's irritating.

Constantine and his group of thugs had a great deal to do with the creation of Christianity as we know it. This is especially true for the foundation of the Catholic Church.

Prior to that time, there were a wild variety of different Christianities. To cite a few of the more prominent examples:

- The Ebionites who believed Jesus was a mortal human, conceived the same way all babies are by Mary and Joseph, and adopted by God as a son. The Spirit came down and inhabited his body at his baptist by John the Baptist. The two then formed a symbiotic relationship which was why Jesus could heal people and perform miracles. At his crucifixion, because God can't die, the Spirit left him on the cross. This might explain the quote "why have you forsaken me".

- The Marcionites who believed in two gods. Yahweh, the OT god, was the lesser god of this world. Jesus was separate from and superior to this base god. Jesus appeared in the temple one day as a fully formed adult (no Mary, no Joseph, no childhood) to offer salvation out of this lesser world to a better place. They rejected all things Jewish and would have left out the OT completely.

- The Docetics who believed that Jesus was an apparition of God. They thought the material world was so corrupting that the pure spirit of God could have no part of it. Jesus was an illusion. The idea of an incarnation of God was to them a contradiction in terms.

There was such wild variety between the different Christianities prior to Nicaea as to make distinctions between Protestant and Catholic, or even between Christian and Muslim, look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

So to answer the question, we have to nail down just what we call "Christianity". The idea wasn't born overnight. Nobody "just made up Jesus one day". Evidence indicates the religion slowly evolved as a synchratic faith. A bit of Egypt. A bit of Persia. A bit of Greece. A bit of Rome. A bit of Judaism...

DP, it's like explaining to Twitards that their beloved vampires weren't always seductive sparkly creatures. They don't care what the real influences and original permutations were.

(January 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Constantine and his group of thugs had a great deal to do with the creation of Christianity as we know it. This is especially true for the foundation of the Catholic Church.

Prior to that time, there were a wild variety of different Christianities. To cite a few of the more prominent examples:

- The Ebionites who believed Jesus was a mortal human, conceived the same way all babies are by Mary and Joseph, and adopted by God as a son. The Spirit came down and inhabited his body at his baptist by John the Baptist. The two then formed a symbiotic relationship which was why Jesus could heal people and perform miracles. At his crucifixion, because God can't die, the Spirit left him on the cross. This might explain the quote "why have you forsaken me".

- The Marcionites who believed in two gods. Yahweh, the OT god, was the lesser god of this world. Jesus was separate from and superior to this base god. Jesus appeared in the temple one day as a fully formed adult (no Mary, no Joseph, no childhood) to offer salvation out of this lesser world to a better place. They rejected all things Jewish and would have left out the OT completely.

- The Docetics who believed that Jesus was an apparition of God. They thought the material world was so corrupting that the pure spirit of God could have no part of it. Jesus was an illusion. The idea of an incarnation of God was to them a contradiction in terms.

There was such wild variety between the different Christianities prior to Nicaea as to make distinctions between Protestant and Catholic, or even between Christian and Muslim, look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

So to answer the question, we have to nail down just what we call "Christianity". The idea wasn't born overnight. Nobody "just made up Jesus one day". Evidence indicates the religion slowly evolved as a synchratic faith. A bit of Egypt. A bit of Persia. A bit of Greece. A bit of Rome. A bit of Judaism...

So what your saying is that the accepted view of what consitutes christianity was created by constantine and his thugs at th council of nicea.
Faith by commitee. No wonder it makes shag all sense.

sorry summerqueen. I think there is anothe person called midsummer and I confused you two.

Quote:Constantine and his group of thugs had a great deal to do with the creation of Christianity as we know it. This is especially true for the foundation of the Catholic Church.

Prior to that time, there were a wild variety of different Christianities. To cite a few of the more prominent examples:

- The Ebionites who believed Jesus was a mortal human, conceived the same way all babies are by Mary and Joseph, and adopted by God as a son. The Spirit came down and inhabited his body at his baptist by John the Baptist. The two then formed a symbiotic relationship which was why Jesus could heal people and perform miracles. At his crucifixion, because God can't die, the Spirit left him on the cross. This might explain the quote "why have you forsaken me".

- The Marcionites who believed in two gods. Yahweh, the OT god, was the lesser god of this world. Jesus was separate from and superior to this base god. Jesus appeared in the temple one day as a fully formed adult (no Mary, no Joseph, no childhood) to offer salvation out of this lesser world to a better place. They rejected all things Jewish and would have left out the OT completely.

- The Docetics who believed that Jesus was an apparition of God. They thought the material world was so corrupting that the pure spirit of God could have no part of it. Jesus was an illusion. The idea of an incarnation of God was to them a contradiction in terms.

There was such wild variety between the different Christianities prior to Nicaea as to make distinctions between Protestant and Catholic, or even between Christian and Muslim, look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

So to answer the question, we have to nail down just what we call "Christianity". The idea wasn't born overnight. Nobody "just made up Jesus one day". Evidence indicates the religion slowly evolved as a synchratic faith. A bit of Egypt. A bit of Persia. A bit of Greece. A bit of Rome. A bit of Judaism...

DP if you look at what I wrote I readily point out that Christianity was influenced by many people and many groups.

There were not really a wide variety of different groups. There were a few small unsuccessful groups who would fade out quickly. However, they had a huge impact on what Christianity owuld become because the Church reacted against these various groups and spurred the Church to more clearly define certain teachings. Orthodox Christianity was always teh bastion of Christianity. It was held together by the authority of Bishops and their union with Rome. We can see this clearly as early as Clement of Rome, Origien and all of the early Church fathers.

Christianity evolved but was created by the person of Jesus. Nobody "made him up." They took what he said and more clearly explained it. Anyway, for the most part I agree with your post. The only thing I would disagree with is that the distinctions are inconvinient because the Orthodox Christians always maintained distinctions with the groups you listed and in fact have devleoped and blossomed into what they are today that is the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

(January 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: So what your saying is that the accepted view of what consitutes christianity was created by constantine and his thugs at th council of nicea.
Faith by commitee. No wonder it makes shag all sense.

Ding ding ding ding "We have a winner"

How else do you think they came up with such a hair-brained concept like the Trinity?

The only way to really understand the Trinity is it was a compromise made in committee.

---

(January 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm)dqualk Wrote: There were not really a wide variety of different groups. There were a few small unsuccessful groups who would fade out quickly.

Well that's certainly the spin that Christian apologists use when confronted with an undeniable reality of different Christian groups. It can't be denied because the early struggles of Christianity are found in the Bible itself. The fact that Nicaea was such a contentious meeting is proof that these different forms of Christianity were divisive and had their own followings that persisted at least three centuries after Jesus supposedly came along. Ultimately, it required a Roman Emperor to force a resolution (along with centuries of persecution of heterodox Christians that followed).

Quote:Christianity evolved but was created by the person of Jesus. Nobody "made him up." They took what he said and more clearly explained it.

Assuming Jesus really existed, he evidently didn't make much clear, judging by how many different factions there were. Even the Gospels that were accepted into canon contain many contradictions on his teachings. There's no evidence to suggest the Christian fantasy of one unified theology in the early church is anything but.

I certainly don't think "thugs" is too strong a word. Consider this account written by the xtian scholar Socrates Scholasticus - who was a contemporary of the events described - the murder of Hypatia by xtian thugs.

http://cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia...rates.html

Quote:Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.* After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them.

Socrates, trying to put the best possible face on this neglects to mention that Cyril, the bishop in charge, was later made another one of those fucking 'saints' that catholics seem to trot out at will.

Quote:Ding ding ding ding "We have a winner"

How else do you think they came up with such a hair-brained concept like the Trinity?

The only way to really understand the Trinity is it was a compromise made in committee.

That is silly. The Trinity was concieved of becasue of the fervent belief that Jesus was God. Overtime people began to question who was the better God. From this arose the Trinity, which states that they are coeternal and coequal. Also, the Trinity serves a special function in Theology. It allows for a completely just and loving God. It also allows for a God which is both outside of time and inside of time. I think it is sad that you think the Trinity is a half brained concept. This just shows that you have not learned enough about it to appreciate it. I'm not saying you would necessarily believe it but you would certainly see it as something more beautiful and complex.

Further, the theology of the Trinity was very well articulated before Nicea, and is pretty well articulated in the Gospel of John, and it is sprinkled throughout the NT, and even in a way in the OT.

Most scholars agree that John thought Jesus was God.

Quote:
Well that's certainly the spin that Christian apologists use when confronted with an undeniable reality of different Christian groups. It can't be denied because the early struggles of Christianity are found in the Bible itself. The fact that Nicaea was such a contentious meeting is proof that these different forms of Christianity were divisive and had their own followings that persisted at least three centuries after Jesus supposedly came along. Ultimately, it required a Roman Emperor to force a resolution (along with centuries of persecution of heterodox Christians that followed).

Well the fact is that these various groups were ultimately not that influential and died out. They also did not have an organic connection to the apostles through the Holy Ordination of the Bishops. That is Polycarp was the disciple of the Apostle John and Irenaius was his disciple etc etc. This is the same for Peter, Cletus then Clement and so non. There was an organic development of Christian belief within the Church. These others groups were typically spin offs that did not last too long and did not have great influence for long periods of time. I suppose the most influential of Christian heresies was Arianism, but it was not articulated until Arius in the 4th century. And it was at first a minoirity opinion. It would gain strength in certain regions but ultimately its time faded and the Orthodox opinion was all that was left. I call it the "orthodox" opinion because that it typically what scholars refer to it as.

Quote:Assuming Jesus really existed, he evidently didn't make much clear, judging by how many different factions there were. Even the Gospels that were accepted into canon contain many contradictions on his teachings. There's no evidence to suggest the Christian fantasy of one unified theology in the early church is anything but.

Well, most scholars agree that He did exist. Once again there were not that many different interpretations of Jesus in the early days. Most of these were small and lost power quickly. However, I do not think this is because Jesus was easy to understand, I think this is becuase the first Chrsitians were mostly yokels, slaves and uneducated women. They did not waste time argueing about whether Jesus was this or that, they just accepted what their Bishops told them, and Bishops didnt aruge that much becasue they were too busy dying in the Roman persecutions. When Christianity began to gain respect, and eventually reached the mainstream, thats when we saw the Arian problem really escalate, and the Donatists etc. But these ultimately did not last long, and were certainly not as universally present.

There were the occasional really bright Christan, but they were clearly of the Orthodox opinion. I think the best example of one who was not would be Tertullian, who was Orthodox for most of his life, but converted to montanism later in life, but he was still largely orthodox in most of his beliefs. And once again the Montanist were a small group that did not last long, and they were limited to rural areas of Africa for the most part.

---

Minimalist... lol what is your arguement here? That there were bad Christians in history? I agree with you, and frankly I am not surprised, there are bad people everywhere in every institution. Also, the article says that Cyril was disturbed by their evil, and it was condemned.

Did you know Stalin was an atheist? Does that shock you? Does that make you think all atheists are evil?