(September 27, 2015 at 12:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(September 26, 2015 at 7:00 am)pocaracas Wrote: yeah... but there were several alleged bishops/priests preaching a slightly different message, on several places.
<clipped for clarity>
how can we tell that the true teachings of Jesus are the ones preached by the catholic church?
The notion of the trinity comes well after the fact - would this view still be held, if the roman christians hadn't accepted Paul's teachings?
And yes, I know I'm mixing a bunch of stuff into one bag, but, like you know so well, it's a broad subject.
Simple enough, poca.
The bishops who disagreed with one another held councils to consider these matters. After much discussion and debate, some ideas were identified as orthodox and others were judged heretical.
It isn't like Rubio, Cruz, Trump and Bush all espousing slightly different variations of a "conservative" message that you can pick and choose from. In the case of theology, some things are right and some things are wrong. Others are uncertain and left as open questions.
When Arius put forth his ideas, Athanasius stood against him. It took awhile, but Athanasius' views ultimately carried the day.
And yet, in the 8th century, across the pond, in Egypt, some people - not any people, but monks - still used the gospel by Peter.
I'm thinking those councils didn't work so well, even after the first one, at Nicea... who can say anything about what happened before this one?
And you said it right: some things are right, some things are wrong - what sort of god leaves so much to be guessed by upcoming theologians? How accurate are the guesses of the church of Rome, considering all that was indeed guessed about Jesus at the time?
I'm guessing this god failed utterly to properly convey his message... again!
Where did he convey it? Jerusalem.... is now Jewish, like it was before Jesus... but spent some time being muslim... oh, christianity never took off in there, huh? I wonder why...
Why do people follow such a failure of a god?
