(September 18, 2021 at 4:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 18, 2021 at 4:18 pm)WinterHold Wrote: It does say it all, it says "Rome called the opinion it didn't like -which originated in the Eastern church- a "heresy".

And the heresy is what made them a cult. That’s very nearly the definition of a cult - a relatively small group of people with a heterodox religious opinion.

Boru

Heresy according to whom? emperor Constantine and his priests? 
This was a filtration of the Roman religious institution from any opposing voice ! the belief that Jesus is a mere prophet was "normal" and even "accepted by many" across the empire:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

Quote:Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

The real heresy is the act of Constantine and his priests.
Nobody saw Jesus as a son of God but the "heretic" Constantine and his priests; he doomed his empire and produced a mutant heathen.

He produced "a trinity".

---

Read history better, please.

(September 18, 2021 at 6:12 pm)WinterHold Wrote: The real heresy is the act of Constantine and his priests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_he...l_heresies

(September 18, 2021 at 6:12 pm)WinterHold Wrote: He produced "a trinity".

---

Read history better, please.

Quote:According to Eusebius's work, The Life of Constantine, the controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions, and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire.

Wikipedia || Arian Controversy

Quote:While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, it was first formulated as early Christians attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions.

An early Trinitarian formula appears towards the end of the first century, where Clement of Rome rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?" (1 Clement 46:6). Around the turn of the first century, the Didache directs Christians to "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".

The pseudonymous Ascension of Isaiah, written sometime between the end of the first century and the beginning of the third century, possesses a "proto-trinitarian" view, such as in its narrative of how the inhabitants of the sixth heaven sing praises to "the primal Father and his Beloved Christ, and the Holy Spirit". Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".

Justin Martyr is the first to use much of the terminology that would later become widespread in codified Trinitarian theology. For example, he describes that the Son and Father are the same "being" (ousia) and yet are also distinct faces (prosopa), anticipating the three persons (hypostases) that come with Tertullian and later authors. Justin describes how Jesus, the Son, is distinguishable from the Father but also derives from the Father, using the analogy of a fire (representing the Son) that is lit from its source, a torch (representing the Father). At another point, Justin Marty wrote that "we worship him [Jesus Christ] with reason, since we have learned that he is the Son of the living God himself, and believe him to be in second place and the prophetic Spirit in the third" (1 Apology 13, cf. ch. 60).

The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century.

Wikipedia || Trinity

(September 18, 2021 at 6:12 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(September 18, 2021 at 4:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And the heresy is what made them a cult. That’s very nearly the definition of a cult - a relatively small group of people with a heterodox religious opinion.

Boru

Heresy according to whom? emperor Constantine and his priests? 
This was a filtration of the Roman religious institution from any opposing voice ! the belief that Jesus is a mere prophet was "normal" and even "accepted by many" across the empire:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

Quote:Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

The real heresy is the act of Constantine and his priests.
Nobody saw Jesus as a son of God but the "heretic" Constantine and his priests; he doomed his empire and produced a mutant heathen.

He produced "a trinity".

---

Read history better, please.

It’s definitional. You can’t reasonably argue that a heterodox religious position is anything BUT heresy. Bear it mind that declaring a belief to be heretical doesn’t establish which belief is correct, only that the minority position is seen as a threat to the majority. And the Arians were decidedly in the minority. As I’ve told you before, the belief you call ‘Nicene Christianity’ was the majority position of most Christians before the Council ever took place. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I’ll be happy to consider it.

Boru

(September 18, 2021 at 5:59 am)WinterHold Wrote: Reading history does indeed give us a glimpse on the current state of matters; and religion is no different.

Actually; Christianity never considered "Jesus" a God or Son of God; but with the admission and documentation of the Christian church itself; this neo-belief was manufactured, created and formulated in year AD 325:

Quote:The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers. It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being.

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-C...Nicaea-325

Another more detailed source from wikipedia:

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

All Christians who say that "Jesus is the son of God" believe in the conclusion of the First Council of Nicaea; i.e the Nicene Creed :

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

Quote:It is the defining creed of Nicene or mainstream Christianity,[1][2][3] which includes those Christian denominations that adhere to the teaching of the creed. Nicene Christianity regards Jesus as divine and co-eternal with God the Father. Various non-Nicene doctrines, beliefs, and creeds have been formed since the fourth century, all of which are considered heresies[4] by adherents of Nicene Christianity.

So now we have it documented and even referenced with historical refrences: the Christians of today -and all Christians worshiping Jesus as son of God"; are not actually "Christians": but "Nicene Christians".

That's their historical and true name; and taking the name "Christians" to be their religious label is false and a big lie: these are "Nicene Christians" not Christians.

The first known writing of the NT didn't get written until almost 100 years after the alleged time the bible claims the Jesus Character existed. Not only that, since that time lots of NT "books, were written, many were left out of the "final" Council of Nicaea voting. But even after the Council of 329, I find it funny that future newer "versions" were written. If the Council got it right, then why the newer versions? 

Still don't see the point in this post. This is not news to historians. 

And of course they were Christians, just like Sunnis and Shiites are both Muslims whom simply have different interpretations of the Koran and both think they got it right.

And "Son of God" is not a original motif of monotheism. Prior polytheism has Gods/gods. Whom are the heads of the divine world whom have families and children. Even Buddhism has Queen Maya being told by the divine world that she would give birth to a son that would bring wisdom to the world. In ancient Egypt Horus was the son of Osiris and Isis, and was worshiped as the "savior" hero god of the Egyptians. 

To imply that Nicaea Christians are not "real Christians" is crap. Just like to day when Sunnis claim that Shiites are not "real Muslims". The 329 Nicaean still believed in the Christian monotheistic God regardless of what other Christians interpreted. 

The only thing I can agree with is the Nicaean bible is the first known completed compiled bible. 

You are employing the "True Scotsman fallacy". 

FYI, Thomas Jefferson did not believe that the Jesus character was some magic man, but considered the Jesus Character a philosopher. But he was still a Christian. He simply was not a fundy or theocrat.

(September 18, 2021 at 8:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The only thing I can agree with is the Nicaean bible is the first known completed compiled bible. 

Quote:Nicea Myths #1: Did Constantine and the Council of Nicea change the Bible?

The Council of Nicea never addressed the books of the Bible (and thus could not have changed them).

It's just not there.

Proving something negative is always tricky. I can't show you a quote where someone from the 4th century said, "Oh, by the way, we didn't talk about the books of the Bible." You'll have to take my word—and the word of every reputable historian in history—that it's never mentioned.

Or you can go through all the sources listed above, as I did. That they threw out or even talked about the canon is one of many Nicea myths.

Of course, they really didn't have a "Bible" yet, anyway. Their Scriptures were a collection of books, and which books were accepted varied from church to church, though only over a few books, none of them gnostic (like the Gospel of Thomas or the Pistis Sophia).

(link)

(September 18, 2021 at 9:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 18, 2021 at 8:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The only thing I can agree with is the Nicaean bible is the first known completed compiled bible. 

Quote:Nicea Myths #1: Did Constantine and the Council of Nicea change the Bible?

The Council of Nicea never addressed the books of the Bible (and thus could not have changed them).

It's just not there.

Proving something negative is always tricky. I can't show you a quote where someone from the 4th century said, "Oh, by the way, we didn't talk about the books of the Bible." You'll have to take my word—and the word of every reputable historian in history—that it's never mentioned.

Or you can go through all the sources listed above, as I did. That they threw out or even talked about the canon is one of many Nicea myths.

Of course, they really didn't have a "Bible" yet, anyway. Their Scriptures were a collection of books, and which books were accepted varied from church to church, though only over a few books, none of them gnostic (like the Gospel of Thomas or the Pistis Sophia).

(link)

I didn't say "change them". I said they voted on the books to be kept in and left out. That is what councils do, vote. 

And future different sects of Christianity DID write their own versions, otherwise we would not have the NIV, which came later.

(September 18, 2021 at 9:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I didn't say "change them". I said they voted on the books to be kept in and left out. That is what councils do, vote. 

And future different sects of Christianity DID write their own versions, otherwise we would not have the NIV, which came later.

What part of "never addressed the books of the bible" did you not understand?

(September 18, 2021 at 10:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 18, 2021 at 9:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I didn't say "change them". I said they voted on the books to be kept in and left out. That is what councils do, vote. 

And future different sects of Christianity DID write their own versions, otherwise we would not have the NIV, which came later.

What part of "never addressed the books of the bible" did you not understand?

He's trolling the place, and has been for years. Time for an eviction; the educational content of his posts are nil.

(September 18, 2021 at 10:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 18, 2021 at 9:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I didn't say "change them". I said they voted on the books to be kept in and left out. That is what councils do, vote. 

And future different sects of Christianity DID write their own versions, otherwise we would not have the NIV, which came later.

What part of "never addressed the books of the bible" did you not understand?

HUGE difference between say, being a collector and an editor. "Compile" does not mean the same as editing" or " rewriting". 

The Nicaean Council didn't butcher prior writings or rewrite prior writings. They simply  voted on what writings they thought most reflected their own intent and political desires. 

Was that "Council" any better than any holy person or clergy or soothsayer, or Imam or Guru  or ABBA FAN? FUCK NO!

The Nicaean Christians were no like any other upstart religious morons, who thought they knew the truth of the world and wanted to create the first "book" on their efforts. 

I'd say that they were no more correct than any Muslim or Jew or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist today, that thing they got it right. 

If L. Ron. Hubbard can concoct Scientology, then what makes any human think that Christianity, or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or the Jewish Faith is any more credible?

I love the compassion of my fellow humans. I think we are extremely capable of such. But I will always hate that far to many humans favor their own egos, and tribalism over reason and facts and pragmatism.