First Council of Nicaea: when Christianity was deformed and Jesus named son of God.

[Angrboda]

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.

There is no historical basis for this idea that the Council of Nicaea discussed and established the Canon of Scripture and thus created the Bible.

(link)

How many different ways do you need for it to be said?

[Duty]

You just found that out????

I didn't have the foggiest idea what the Nicene creed was/means before this thread. Interesting!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

(bold mine)

They did no such thing. This is the agenda of the Council of Nicaea:

-The Arian question.

-When to celebrate Easter.

-What to do about Melitius.

-Internal church discipline.

They didn't vote on church writings, which books were canon,, etc. There is no such thing as a 'Nicene Bible'.

Boru

[WinterHold]

He produced "a trinity".

---

Read history better, please.

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

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

And here is our Christian scholar who invented heathen Christianity, turning it from a "monolithic" faith into a heathen religion with 3 Gods, formulated and made official in the First Council of Nicaea .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And here is our Christian scholar who invented heathen Christianity, turning it from a "monolithic" faith into a heathen religion with 3 Gods, formulated and made official in the First Council of Nicaea .

I think you’ve misread what Justin Martyr has to say about this. He appears to have believed what the Council later made official dogma, that God and Christ are the same person.

And it’s not helpful to your case that Martyr made this point two centuries before the Council of Nicaea. In other words, the Council confirmed what the majority of Christians already believed.

Boru

[WinterHold]

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



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

Heterodox religious beliefs were always present in Christianity; even the NT  had a heterodox sections that were "filtered" and "rejected" by the religious institution:

a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up,[9] and these books (including some considered apocryphal by Protestants) are still regarded as the constituents of the Catholic canon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regi...l_of_Hippo
Are Catholics "heretics" or are Protestants are "heretics"?
As I said it will end in bloodshed.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Heterodox religious beliefs were always present in Christianity; even the NT  had a heterodox sections that were "filtered" and "rejected" by the religious institution:

a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up,[9] and these books (including some considered apocryphal by Protestants) are still regarded as the constituents of the Catholic canon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regi...l_of_Hippo
Are Catholics "heretics" or are Protestants are "heretics"?
As I said it will end in bloodshed.

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

[Angrboda]

And here is our Christian scholar who invented heathen Christianity, turning it from a "monolithic" faith into a heathen religion with 3 Gods, formulated and made official in the First Council of Nicaea .

No one has claimed that it was a monolithic faith prior to Nicea, and it wasn't a monolithic faith after Nicea. You've attacked a strawman which wouldn't prove your point even if your argument is successful.

[Brian37]

Exactly what was this Council looking at to justify as evidence for the arguments you are making Boru?

In today's courts, the prosecutor and defense lawyer look at what they think is "evidence". They both have to collect that "evidence" which is what I was talking about by "compile".

The writings prior to that Council where what they were arguing. What won out was the vote based on what the council compiled.

[WinterHold]

Heterodox religious beliefs were always present in Christianity; even the NT  had a heterodox sections that were "filtered" and "rejected" by the religious institution:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regi...l_of_Hippo
Are Catholics "heretics" or are Protestants are "heretics"?
As I said it will end in bloodshed.

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "party of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.