A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Jehanne]

What the hell is Triantarism ?

So .... first you say there was no orthodoxy, and now you're saying Arianism was "an orthodox view".
Alrighty then.

I think he meant Trinitarianism and i think he means there was no single orthodoxy but many parallel ones among different groups

The scholarly consensus (especially, among secular New Testament scholars and historians) is that the views of Jesus as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not the view of Jesus among his first followers, who saw him as a fully Jewish individual, perhaps a prophet, who foretold the end of the World and the defeat of the Romans by an angel from Heaven, "the Son of Man".  In fact, no one in the first 40 years after the death of Jesus saw him as being "fully God, true God..." etc.

[Mister Agenda]

Did Voltaire say the words 'I do not believe God is real'?

He had an altar in his home in Ferney with the dedication Erexit deo Voltaire (Raised for God by Voltaire). And he used the Watchmaker Argument to argue for design.

in the post above he is quoted in saying both:

therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim,

[b]therefore there is no God; [/b]

I had thought perhaps you merely failed to completely comprehend your sources, but that quote mine shows you a liar. The full quote:

These inconceivable absurdities revolt weak and rash minds, as well as wise and resolute minds. They say: "Our masters paint God to us as the most insensate and the most barbarous of all beings; therefore there is no God; but they should say: therefore our masters attribute to God their absurdities and their furies, therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim, therefore God is as wise and as good as they make him out mad and wicked. It is thus that wise men account for things. But if a bigot hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate who is a watchdog of the priests; and this watchdog has them burned over a slow fire, in the belief that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty he outrages.

Edit: I see Paleophyte beat me to this.

[Bucky Ball]

I think he meant Trinitarianism and i think he means there was no single orthodoxy but many parallel ones among different groups

The scholarly consensus (especially, among secular New Testament scholars and historians) is that the views of Jesus as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not the view of Jesus among his first followers, who saw him as a fully Jewish individual, perhaps a prophet, who foretold the end of the World and the defeat of the Romans by an angel from Heaven, "the Son of Man".  In fact, no one in the first 40 years after the death of Jesus saw him as being "fully God, true God..." etc.

Completely irrelevant. That is not the issue. A red herring. 
(If you're going to assert scholarly concensus, you must reference it to a source, and probably a poll of scholars). 

You said there was no orthodoxy. Then you said Arianism was an orthodox position. 

The thing you were taking exception to was whether there was an orthodox position or was there orthodoxy. 
Clearly orthodoxy developed. And you just contradicted yourself AGAIN. 

view of Jesus among his first followers, who saw him as a fully Jewish individual, perhaps a prophet, who foretold the end of the World and the defeat of the Romans by an angel from Heaven, "the Son of Man".  In fact, no one in the first 40 years after the death of Jesus saw him as being "fully God, true God..." etc.

Then THAT was the orthodox position at that time. And if NO ONE disputed it, then you just contradicted yourself again.

There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.

Apparently, then, the first forty years were not in constant flux, as you claimed, if that wasn't.

Of course no one in the first 40 years believed him to be God, (although being a "divine being" for a Jew was not equivalent to Yahweh
... there were all sorts of divine beings in the heavenly host). One can be divine in Hebrew thought, and not "just" be a human.
But that does not imply equality with Yahweh, or anything even approaching it. It's a field of considerable interest in Jewish studies.

A Jew would never equate a human with Yahweh. A "son of god" was merely a righteous man, not what it came to be later.
Clearly he was not "just a human", even then. Paul wrote (during the 1st 40 years)

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1 Corinthians 15.

Ordinary humans do not appear to people after they die. Already in the first 40 years he was not thought to be an ordinary human. The development of the concept of how he became a god is explored in Ehrman's book on the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

That there was tremendous diversity in the proto-christian community is evident. Nothing that could be pointed to as a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice of christianity would arise until these formative years had passed.

New magic book encapsulates this moment itself, with Paul™ writing letters about errant churches. The cusp of a christian religious orthodoxy.

[Drich]

in the post above he is quoted in saying both:

therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim,

[b]therefore there is no God; [/b]

I had thought perhaps you merely failed to completely comprehend your sources, but that quote mine shows you a liar. The full quote:

These inconceivable absurdities revolt weak and rash minds, as well as wise and resolute minds. They say: "Our masters paint God to us as the most insensate and the most barbarous of all beings; therefore there is no God; but they should say: therefore our masters attribute to God their absurdities and their furies, therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim, therefore God is as wise and as good as they make him out mad and wicked. It is thus that wise men account for things. But if a bigot hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate who is a watchdog of the priests; and this watchdog has them burned over a slow fire, in the belief that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty he outrages.

Edit: I see Paleophyte beat me to this.

hey liars (you and pale-o), i represented those two quotes as being two separate quotes!!!

[no one]

drick has convinced itself that two plus two is eleventy six, and it will not stop until the rest of the world praises its skill at the extreme maths.

[Drich]

[Jehanne]

That there was tremendous diversity in the proto-christian community is evident. Nothing that could be pointed to as a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice of christianity would arise until these formative years had passed.

New magic book encapsulates this moment itself, with Paul™ writing letters about errant churches. The cusp of a christian religious orthodoxy.

All that I am claiming is that "orthodoxy", Christian or otherwise, are those sets of memes that dominated, over time, other memes, which were, ultimately, labeled as being "heresies". Of course, the "appeal to authority" is often made, at least until the so-called authorities began changing the so-called immutable dogmas of their religion.

[The Architect Of Fate]

what a completely intellectual dishonest/fallacy dependent way to refute an argument or source material. you offer nothing in the way of quotes pr authority just a sweeping dismissal/Argumentum ad lapidem I gave you two sources one where voltare spells out why he will never self identify as atheist (his philosophical dictionary/his cipher so his followers know when he says deist he mean atheist. ect. and his 1763 tretis lambasting those who believe in any sort of god mocking them and their system of belief. 

Actually all you did was cite to sources and insist proves he's an atheist when it in fact does not .It's not my job to refute something that has not been demonstrated . You claimed he's an atheist you failed to show it .End of story.All you doing now is stomping your feet and whining that i have not bought your narrative. 

Those are his recorded words sport, and neither you now any other commentator have the juice to turn them or dismiss them. 

Yup that you spin to suit your own narrative ,And i don't dismiss them i dismiss your twisting of them .

I need not even say anything else as my primary source tells the story to the intellectually honest among you.

All you have done is say things ,And indeed it tells a story .Just not the one you insist on.

I have voltare's own thoughts and you come at them with a "nut-huh."

You have Voltaire which you frequently insist prove things they don't ,And the only thing i'm obligated to do is point it out  

 fine If you are not smart enough to see how you have been bested it's good enough for me to know you have.

Actually i'm smart enough to see the opposite and i'm sure no matter the outcome of this discussion you would deluded yourself you won .Unfortunately ha is not the case . 

 i need not chase a victory already mine.

Friend you been chasing and fell down a ditch ages ago .And no victory is mine i'm afraid and unlike you i don't really care because a victory over you doesn't mean much .

Again you waste my time

[Nay_Sayer]

@Drich -Snipped a literal wall of garbage-

You seem cranky, Or as the kids say salty;

Need a diaper change buddy? 

Bottle?

Rash?

Did that mean kid down the road take your bike again?

*cradles baby drich* It'll be ok.