A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Drich]

because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use. IE if he was wrong about his prediction based on information and an understanding of God you guys still follow then he was wrong about his base beliefs IE you in turn are wrong where your beliefs cross.. Do you people not even understand your origins and shared beliefs?

his house being used  is just insult to his proud proclamation.

---

still 2 as not addressed to me.

Go fuck yourself Drippy. 
Nothing is about you. 
Nothing. 
You have nothing to offer here.
No only have you nothing to offer, you actually CAN'T respond as you have no education in the matters discussed here, (as you prove with this number thing).
Best you watch out, I'll put you on probation, (what a fucking total joke you are).
Get lost. (Before you go, give us all the names you LIED about wanting you banned from AD). LOL

3

---

It may not be entirely correct with respect to the early communities, but when orthodox Christianity was codified, it is true.

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity";

From the beginning it was never meant to be an orthodox Christianity, as there are no master list of Christian laws, as there were with the Jews. Think about it they just came of a few 1000 years of structured Judaism, the apostles knew how to structure an orthodox religious system. But rather than have one single agree upon book of the law, each epistle to each church is it's own self contain book of law given to a specific region dealing with unique problems. Meaning rules for one church say like the church at Rome need not apply to a more mature church say in Corinth. Rather the church has 2 laws. Love God with all you being and your neighbor as yourself. this would flesh out in different ways for all the different cultures which is why we are told to do our best for God and each other rather than have a set standard some could not meet while out could easily meet the min requirements.

rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and evolve over time.

your right, but what you don't understand it was meant to be this way from the beginning to make sure everyone was held to the highest personal standard possible

---

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.  The Council of Nicaea did not change that, but rather fueled it.  You can, for instance, compare Lumen Gentium (in particular, #14)  from the Second Vatican Council to Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence.  I do not know (or, for that matter, really care) what people like Drich believe.  His version of Christianity is one of many, right from the "beginning" (which likely began in the 40s, a decade after Jesus' death) right up to the present day.  The Christian religion(s) is just a bunch of competing memes, cultural viruses that infect individuals and cultures down through the ages, mutating and changing as the "doctrines" morph and change over time.

There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

still 3

---

There were long periods of orthodoxy. 
Comparing Nicaea to the 20th Century version ignores the centuries where the basic doctrines did not change, including the divinity of Jesus. What exactly is different about basic doctrine in Lumen Gentium from the Council of Trent ? It has not always been "a bunch of competing 'memes'. There were long periods where heretics were burned for not espousing orthodoxy. 
What exactly was in "constant flux" in the 5th Century, the 9th Century, the 11th Century, the 13th Century ? From your assertions, you should be able to answers those questions.
If it is/was so chaotic, why is it that virtually all the mainline Christian bodies still recite the Nicaean Creed every Sunday, and have for centuries ? What "flux" did Nicaea incite exactly ?
Constantine told them he did not care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed.

I'll give you just one example, out of many:

Wikipedia -- Filioque

Many other examples exist -- conciliarism, infant baptism (not to mention the eternal fates of infants who die without Baptism), innerancy of the Bible, necessity of explicit faith in Jesus, venial versus mortal sin, eternal security ("Once saved, always saved."), predestination, universal salvation, etc., etc.  As for burning heretics, such as episodic.  Jon Hus was burned at the behest of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V, but Pope John Paul II, 500 years after Hus' immolation apologized to modern-day Bohemia for his condemnation.  And, so, was Hus a heretic or not?

1 the bible itself never claims innerancy. the doctrine of sola scriptura was added to refute papal authority to change scripture/doctrine.

2 the bible never demands infants be baptized.

3 the bible never identifies or specifically outlines the doctrine of original sin, this was an adopted Greek philosophy. the bible identifies us as slaves the opposite of freewill.

4 the bible never identifies venial sin or mortal sin as the doctrine of mortal sin teaches rather all sin is mortal. Jesus himself literally teach all sin are equal in God's eyes. the polar opposite of this teaching.

5 the bible does teach once saved always saved, but if you read the bible salvation is always discussed as a future event. IE we are not saved by any action we can do in this life, rather we are saved at the point of our judgement, as a gift from God that no one should boast. So from judgement on, we are always saved.

6 God save those in whom he wants saved. it is not a matter of religious power to force God into salvation because you are of this church or that church. Salvation if the prerogative Of Jesus The Christ. So it is not a matter of predestination or universal salvation as both of these take the desision making from God and gives it to the church. (you want to be save follow this doctrine) no. no where in the bible does this play out. Jesus the Christ Per heb 4 decides
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

"the word being the very word of John 1:1/Jesus"

7 nothing in the bible demands we burn anyone. rather we forgive them, and such command is that of a church state and not of the bionically accurate worship of God.

8 1 the bible never identifies what a heretic is. The worst anyone can be is a blasphemer in the bible and Christ himself says there is forgiveness for blaspheming him and the Father but not the holy Spirit. that said he never authorities anyone to harm even a blasphemer of the holy Spirit the one sin that can not be forgiven.